Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To he considered upon Thursday 22 October.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Harland and Wolff

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent his Department has subsidised Harland and Wolff Shipbuilders over the last five years; and how much money is committed to further subsidy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The amount of subsidy provided to Harland and Wolff over the last five years was £225·6 million. Provision of £40·5 million has been made in the Main Estimates for 1987–88.

Mr. Brown: Is not the Minister's problem this: Harland and Wolff now require a subsidy of well over 40 per cent. of its turnover, whereas the EEC sixth directive on shipbuilding means that subsidies at other shipyards are

restricted to 28 per cent.? What steps will the Government take to bring their subsidy to Harland and Wolff into line with the subsidies that they are prepared to provide for mainland merchant shipbuilding yards, or will they continue to subsidise Harland and Wolff in excess of the levels that they are offering to mainland shipyards?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that Northern Ireland is exempt from the EEC sixth directive on shipbuilding subsidies. If he believes that the subsidy given to Harland and Wolff is large, I remind him of the figure quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 7 July in the House, when he said that British Shipbuilders — with which Harland and Wolff is not connected — has been subsidised to the tune of £1,750 million since 1979.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister confirm that the Belfast shipyard is essential to Northern Ireland and that it plays a vital part in the economy by directly employing 3,700 workers and indirectly employing many thousands? Will he also confirm that 740 companies in mainland Britain do business with the shipyard, and that during the last financial year companies in Britain have secured orders worth £50 million from Harland and Wolff for the supply of components and materials? Does that not contrast with the 600 companies in Northern Ireland which secured orders to the value of £7 million in the same period?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes sonic important points. We are aware of the importance of Harland and Wolff to industry in Northern Ireland, and we are doing all that we can to assist Harland and Wolff in winning further orders, upon which the future of the yard depends.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister remind the Secretary of State for Defence of the exact terms of his statement in the House on 24 April, when he said that Swan Hunter should be given a preferential opportunity to bid for AOR2? He also stipulated that AOR2 should be of the same design as AOR1 and that the terms, conditions, cost and programme should be no less favourable to the Ministry of Defence than that which could be obtained from Harland and Wolff for a follow-on ship. Will the Minister continue to press that point and remind the Secretary of State of his statement in the House?

Mr. Viggers: The commitments made at the time of placing the AOR1 order were quite clear. It was confirmed that the order was unsubsidised and comprehensively costed. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, independent assessors are ensuring that there is no overrun on the cost of the construction.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, having spent my working life in shipbuilding, on a recent visit to Harland and Wolff I was immensely impressed by the efficiency of the yard, the quality of the output and the spirit of the work force? Has he received any approach from the EEC Commission which might put the future of that splendid yard at risk?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend's interest in this area is well-known and I welcome his recent visit to the yard. The Government are determined to do all that they can to assist in the winning of future orders for Harland and Wolff. We welcome the recent flexibility that has been


shown by the work force at Harland and Wolff, which should ensure that the manner in which it tenders for further orders is assisted.

Mr. James Marshall: Does the Minister accept that there is agreement in all parts of the House that Harland and Wolff is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland? In the light of that, will the Minister state how many thousands of jobs have been lost to the yard since the Government came to power in 1979? Will he give projected figures for the number of employees in the yard over the next five years?

Mr. Viggers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front Bench with his new responsibilities. We very much look forward to his future contributions.
The subsidy that has been given to Harland and Wolff has enabled it to continue with its merchant shipbuilding orders. The future of that yard will, of course, depend upon the winning of further orders and I cannot speculate with the hon. Gentleman how the yard will succeed. However, the flexibility that the work force has recently shown in its approach to management problems should assist in winning further orders.

Security

Mr. Bowis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress on cooperation on cross-border security with the Republic of Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Both Governments are committed to the development of the closest co-operation to defeat terrorism. Last week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference heard a detailed report on the programme of work which is being carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana in the area of security co-operation, and we shall continue to give the highest priority to this.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no political solutions in the North or South of Ireland until terrorism is defeated? Will he acknowledge the sense of outrage felt in all parts of the United Kingdom at the shooting, from across the border, of a British soldier in Belleek? What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Irish Government about this incident?

Mr. King: I certainly confirm the feeling of outrage that I know every hon. Member will share about that particular atrocity. My hon. Friend may be aware that, after that attack, I spoke immediately to Mr. Lenihan, the Deputy Prime Minister, and to the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, about that incident. He gave me the clearest assurance that every possible effort would be made in respect of their jurisdiction. I confirm that we shall be anxious to co-operate as closely as possible to bring to justice those responsible. It is quite clear that that attack was a deliberate provocation to try to stir up hatred and sectarian feeling.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State be assured by me that the people who live close to the frontier have no confidence whatsoever in what he says? The particular shooting to which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) referred happened in my constituency. The site from which it took place is well known to me. There is no

point in the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that security is better when that was the one single point overlooking Belleek police station and the main street from which an incident of this sort could have taken place. The terrorist was able to move in, carry out the murder and escape without any adequate steps being taken to apprehend him. There is absolutely no confidence in this so-called cooperation, when we know that members of the the Garda Siochana are not even allowed to work overtime.

Mr. King: Of all the Members in the House, the hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that he does not know something about the security situation. He knows perfectly well the problems of guarding 300 miles of border for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He knows how difficult it is to prevent an incident where one evil man can on one occasion creep into position and commit an atrocity of that kind. He knows the challenge that that poses. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but I put it to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that he make a constructive contribution and should recognise that there is no way in which we are likely to improve cross-border security without the co-operation of the Irish Government.

Mr. Bellingham: Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the family of this young soldier who, I gather, had been in the Province for only 24 hours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we reconsidered the whole concept of hot pursuit so that both sides have an opportunity to go over the border in pursuit of terrorists? Surely it is not asking too much to look at that again.

Mr. King: The problems of this sort of attack are not necessarily ones that are immediately met by a response of hot pursuit. It is important that there should be increasingly close co-operation between the security forces of both sides. I certainly look for clear evidence and the clearest determination in pursuit of the perpetrator of this crime. That also applies to the other crimes that have taken place because, tragically, there have been a number of other murders in recent weeks in Northern Ireland, the investigation of all of which must be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 14 May, 16 people have been killed in incidents arising from the security situation. They included five soldiers, two members of the RUC and nine civilians, of whom six are believed to have been the victims of sectarian murders. Of the remainder, two were former members of the security forces. The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for 12 of these brutal murders and the UFF and the UVF claimed responsibility for one each.
In the face of this high level of terrorist activity, the efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield encouraging results. During 1986 a total of 655 people were charged with serious offences, including 12 with murder. So far this year 238 people have been charged with serious offences, including six with murder, and 158 weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and 6,000 lb of


explosives have been recovered. I also understand that during June the Garda recovered about 460 lb of explosives as well as a number of weapons.

Mr. Forsythe: As the name of the man who carried out the dastardly attack on the wife of Jim Nicholson, a former Member of this House, is well-known to the security forces, will the Secretary of State tell the House just what assistance has been given by the Government of the Republic of Ireland to bring this man to justice, to extradite him and to bring him to trial in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: Obviously I cannot comment on hearsay reports, but my understanding is that there are a number of people for whom both the Garda Siochana and the RUC are actively searching at the present time.

Mr. Molyneaux: What are the prospects for real co-operation with the forces of the Irish Republic, given, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said earlier, that the overtime of the Garda Siochana has been almost totally eliminated? Therefore, as the Irish army has to work in conjunction with the Garda there can be no effective co-operation. Is it realistic to expect the IRA to observe office times?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on that question and its totally negative nature. It contains the suggestion that it is not worth trying. It is no secret that the Irish Government face economic problems. The suggestion that somehow we would do better by having nothing to do with the Irish Government and by standing as far apart from them as we can is unrealistic. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be encouraging closer cooperation with the Irish Government and co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic and seeing how we can make this co-operation more effective.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not every Irish Government, since the troubles began, said that they were doing everything they could against terrorism? Does not that honourable undertaking, coupled with the worsening figures of deaths as a result of terrorism, indicate that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is at best irrelevant to the security situation?

Mr. King: I pick up one point straight away about my hon. Friend. When he looks at the statistics, will he be very careful, and when he talks quickly about the worsening figures of deaths, will he remember that within the global statistics are included, for example, those who were killed in the internal feud in INLA and terrorists who met their death at the incident at Loughall, and that it is important to look at what makes up the total statistics. I bow to my hon. Friend in his knowledge of Irish history and in what successive Irish Governments may have said. I can answer only from my own experiences and dealings with present Irish Ministers. I am satisfied that, whatever the history of the past, the whole experience of the previous and the present Government of the Republic of Ireland is an absolute recognition of what a total disaster to the whole of the island of Ireland is the present terrorist campaign, which is the godfather of unemployment in the Republic at present. I do not doubt the sincerity and real determination of the Government of the Republic of Ireland now to see what, together, we can do rout it out once and for all.

Mr. Kilfedder: What has the Anglo-Irish Agreement achieved during the past 18 months in defeating the Provisional IRA south and north of the border? Does the right hon. Gentleman not find it strange that Dublin politicians, who shed tears whenever a British soldier, policeman or civilian is murdered by the IRA, sometimes from across the border, none the less protest vehemently whenever a soldier strays accidentally a few yards across what the right hon. Gentleman said is a complicated border? Will he protest as vehemently to the Eire Foreign Minister whenever one of our soldiers or citizens is murdered from across the border?

Mr. King: There is a question later on the Order Paper on the matter of cross-border incursions. What is certainly true, and I would have thought that the hon. Member would have recognised it when he heard the figures, is that there is now a much better understanding between the Governments about the problems of incursion. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to discover how many of them there have been and how little publicity has been given to them. I hope that he will be encouraged in that respect.

Mr. William Ross: In reply to the second question today the Secretary of State seemed to complain about the activities of one evil man killing a soldier in Belfast while in the next few breaths he talked about 16 people who have died since he last answered questions in the House. When will the Government realise that they, and they alone, were elected by the people of this nation to protect its citizens, and get on with the job and stop depending on other folk? They should do their own job.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows a hit too much about the circumstances in Northern Ireland to pass the blame in that respect. Everybody has a contribution to make. One of the figures that I mentioned was the level of sectarian murders. Many of these sectarian murders will lie on the consciences of a lot of people who make strong speeches and inflame passions. They may not pull the trigger, but they have a share of responsibility for some of the murders that take place. May I just say that, yes, my goodness, standing here as I do as Secretary of State, I do not duck the clear responsibility that I have to do my best to try to improve security in the Province, but I look to a few other people to play their part as well.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a helpful step forward might be to require councillors to take an oath of loyalty, coupled with a renunciation of violence?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is trying to lead me on to country into which I am not quite ready to step. However, I note the point that he made.

Mr. McNamara: I note the Secretary of State's careful reply to his hon. Friend's question. I, too, will not trespass there at present. The Opposition firmly support him and the policies of Her Majesty's Government in pursuing terrorists wherever they come from and from whatever side of the community in Northern Ireland. However, there can be no satisfactory solution to any of the problems of poverty, unemployment or discrimination while the place is plagued in that way. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress is being made in seeking out the random killers in the Ardoyne who are only inflaming the situation and making passions high?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that, following the assassination of Lord Justice Gibson, he is satisfied with the state of cross-border co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana at border areas and crossing points? Will he do what he can to ensure that people who are likely to be targets are not careless and are fully aware of the responsibility that they have for their own safety, that of their loved ones and, particularly, that of the security forces?

Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time with his new responsibilities, and I look forward to debating matters with and responding to questions put by, him and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).
Without debating the merits of the last point, may I say that all those in Northern Ireland in any position of responsibility know that they have a duty to take sensible precautions to avoid offering easy targets to terrorists. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the terrorists that he believes exist in certain places, the most determined effort is being made. I was conscious on Monday night, when I was out with the UDR on patrol, of the increased effort being made in a number of areas to try to enhance the protection given. The steps that I announced in May to try to increase the size of the RUC reserve and the call-out on a full-time basis of the part-time UDR, are undoubtedly helping to meet a determined terrorist threat.

Mr. McGrady: Will the Secretary of State reiterate his assurance that he is receiving the full co-operation of the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Garda Siochana with the RUC to apprehend and pursue terrorists within either jurisdiction? Will he confirm that the per capita expenditure by the Irish Republic on the pursuit and prevention of terrorism exceeds that of the United Kingdom? Most important, will he reaffirm that the basic answer to terrorism is a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, in that terrorism is the sympton, not the malady itself, which is political instability?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has shown that I did not fully answer the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Talk of co-operation as if people will say, "Yes, we will co-operate where perhaps we were not cooperating before" and suddenly it all clicks into place is simply not the score. It will take much detailed work, some of which has been done, and some of which is in process. It will take training, compatibility of equipment and a whole range of different factors to make security cooperation more effective. It takes trust and confidence, and all those things are developing slowly, but in the right direction. It also takes time to establish them. Yes, we are determined, through that, to deny to the terrorists resources, whether they be weapons, explosives, money through the paramilitary rackets, or recruits, more of whom can be created by disaffection and grievance. We are seeking to pursue a totality of approach.

Schools (Parental Choice)

Mr. Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to give parents greater choice in deciding which school their children should attend.

Dr. Mawhinney: New arrangements for the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary schools were announced

on 7 April. Under these new arrangements, from September 1988 parents will be free, within a selective system, to send their children to the secondary school of their choice, subject only to the physical capacity of the school and any special arrangements which may have to be made to protect a limited number of small schools serving relatively isolated communities.

Mr. Harris: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply as a clear sign that the Government are committed to increasing parental choice in all parts of the United Kingdom. Does his answer mean that he will no longer be deciding attendance quotas for indvidual schools?

Dr. Mawhinney: That is exactly what it means — subject to the physical capacity of the school. I saw no justification for my deciding the individual allocation quota for a school when there were parents who wished to send their children to that school but who, because of my edict, were not able to do so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that we are not giving proper choice if we subsidise bus fares for people who travel past good schools to go to other schools, and at the same time close secondary schools in working-class inner Belfast?

Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 20,000 surplus school places in Northern Ireland. The Government have been encouraging the education and library boards to pursue a policy of rationalisation over some years, so that more money will be made available for educating the children. It does not make sense to spend money on half-empty schools when it could be better spent on books and education facilities for the children.

Mr. Alton: Is it the Government's policy to encourage integrated education? Why does it take so long for schools that are based on the integrated principle to achieve grant-aided status, particularly Hazelwood college in north Belfast? Having begun life last September with only 17 pupils, it now has 150 enrolled for the next academic year. Why has the Minister still not given the college grant-aided status?

Dr. Mawhinney: It is the Government's policy to encourage integrated education, if that is what the parents wish, and they have taken several steps to encourage that principle. I do not accept that there is undue delay in the giving of grant-aided status to integrated schools, because I must be satisfied, first, that all those in the area who might be affected by the setting-up of a school have ample opportunity to express their views for my consideration. Secondly, I must be satisfied that when we commit public funds to a school it has a viable future, otherwise I would be subject to the criticism by hon. Members that I was wasting taxpayers' money.

Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce the equivalent of the technical and vocational education initiative in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mawhinney: A vocational education programme for secondary schools in Northern Ireland was announced in December 1986 and some £5·6 million has been made available in the 1987–88 financial year. That programme has the same broad objectives as the technical and


vocational education initiative, but has been tailored to meet the particular needs of the education service in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly welcome that news. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vocational education programme offers a real opportunity to break down barriers between education and training and to establish links between schools and employers? Will my hon. Friend give a little more detail about his plans? Can particular priority be given to introducing the programme in secondary and intermediate schools?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I attach considerable importance to the new initiative. The £5·6 million to which I referred is for this financial year. I hope to be able to make broadly similar amounts available in the next two financial years. That money will go towards the provision of additional laboratories and workshops, additional equipment, sports facilities and in-service training for teachers because I am determined, as my hon. Friend says, to try to increase technology, science, information technology and economic awareness among the pupils in Northern Ireland to help them make the transition from school to industry and work.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the future of electricity generation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: We aim to reduce the Province's over-dependence on oil-fired generating capacity and to promote efficiency in electricity generation and supply. Northern Ireland will require new generating capacity in the mid-1990s and substantial progress has been made in a complex examination of options which, as my hon. Friend knows, include a proposal presented by the private sector as well as by Northern Ireland Electricity.

Mr. Brown: I am encouraged by that reply, but can my hon. Friend assure the House that the final phrase in his answer to my question shows that the Government are anxious to consider the benefits that will flow to the whole economy — not only the Northern Ireland economy but the British economy — from private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Viggers: We recognise the benefit that could flow from a substantial investment of that sort in Northern Ireland, but the issues involved, particularly in the private sector option, are complex. We need to ensure that when the decision is made it will be to the long-term benefit of all consumers in Northern Ireland, both industrial and domestic.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that completion of phase 2 at Kilroot power station is the most economic option presently available for future generation in Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that if the decision were taken to complete Kilroot phase 2 we would create additional jobs for miners on the mainland, reduce dependence on oil by Northern Ireland Electricity and afford time, which is very necessary, to ensure that the right decision is reached on the future siting of the lignite power station and privatisation?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman puts the arguments well on one side. Kilroot 2 provides an attractive option, but we must consider the life of the prospective generating station over, say, 30 years, the price of coal and lignite during that period and the benefits that might flow from a substantial private sector investment in Northern Ireland. We are determined to consider all those factors carefully before reaching our decision.

Mr. James Marshall: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that Northern Ireland will not be used as a dry test run for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry throughout Great Britain?

Mr. Viggers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that thinking does not permeate our minds at all. We are determined to do the best that we can for the consumers in Northern Ireland. There are no current plans to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity, although of course, we watch the progress of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who is responsihile for electricity generation in Great Britain, and we shall see whether there are lessons to be learnt for Northern Ireland.

Tourism

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on initiatives being taken to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: We have encouraged the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in its promotional and marketing activities, and the grant-in-aid to the board has been increased for 1987–88 by 18 per cent. to over £3 million in order to assist it in these tasks. In addition, the Department of Economic Development is encouraging the extension and improvement of tourist accommodation by the private sector and the development of new tourist amenities by the public sector with grant-aid of almost £3 million.

Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Did he hear the BBC Radio 4 programme "Breakaway" on Saturday, which paid attention to the idyllic attractions of Lough Erne, which seems to be an area of miles of still water and wooded islands where one can sail for days, tying up at different jetties, at each of which there is a different pub? Is it not time that we paid some regard to the beauties and attractions of Northern Ireland and the jobs that tourism can create for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Viggers: I regret that I missed that programme last week, but I have visited Lough Erne. The last occasion on which I did so was for the Sealink fishing festival—the fishing festival with the largest prize money in Europe—where I met a number of the 300 competitors from continental Europe and enjoyed with them the delightful tranquility of Lough Erne, which I encourage all hon. Members to see for themselves.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most useful thing that the Government could do to promote tourism in Northern Ireland would be to win the war against terrorism and violence in the Province? In that regard, will he make representations to the Government of the Republic to the effect that our support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not unconditional and that we expect the apprehension and extradition to Northern Ireland of wanted terrorist suspects?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is leading me along paths which are not my direct responsibility as Minister with responsibility for tourism. Those who come to Northern Ireland can enjoy golf, angling and the scenery, without really knowing that it has a problem of sectarian violence and I encourage people to take advantage of the tourist attractions immediately.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Dublin Government use their embassies throughout the world to promote tourism in the Irish Republic. Will the Government urge their embassies to do a similar job to show the attractions of Northern Ireland to people in different parts of the world and to tell them the truth about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Viggers: Our embassies overseas work hard to promote tourism in Northern Ireland, and I shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman more information about the efforts that have been made in that respect.

Plastic Bullets

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there are any plans to end the use of plastic bullets in the Province.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): No, Sir.

Mr. Parry: As 383 people have been injured, some seriously, by the use of plastic bullets, and that 15 people, mainly innocent civilians, have been killed, will the Minister reconsider his decision? Will he state the position for compensation for victims who have been killed or maimed?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that over the years Northern Ireland has seen serious street disturbances. It is necessary to have an adequate deterrent to meet such disturbances. As to the figures that he gave on injuries, he should also bear in mind that in the two years ending in November last year about 1,000 RUC officers had been injured in street disturbances. It is important that we take that into account. Compensation is a matter for the normal processes of civil litigation. I do not believe that there is any extension of the statutory schemes.

Mr. Adley: Everybody obviously regrets any injury or fatality, but does my right hon. Friend agree that if he was a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box being asked to answer such questions in almost any other country he would probably have said, "Yes, Sir. They will be replaced by live rounds."? Is it not a compliment to the security services and to the tolerance that we show in this country towards such murderous activity that we still use plastic rounds?

Mr. Stanley: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is entirely right. We have always followed a policy of absolute minimum effective deterrence in trying to deal with the serious problem of street disturbances. The series of marches in the Province during the past few days have been conducted in a much more peaceful and relaxed atmosphere. That is a significant development that reflects extremely well on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and on both communities in the Province.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that in many circumstances the use of plastic bullets is, in fact, the use

of live ammunition, and that the circumstances surrounding their use often lead to confusion and to fatalities? Does he not also agree that, politically speaking, the use of plastic bullets is probably one of the most emotive and defeatist things that could be done when quelling a random disturbance in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the nature of the problems that the RUC has had to face in the past in Northern Ireland. I certainly cannot agree with him when he says that plastic bullets are the equivalent to using live rounds. I draw his attention to the fact that although, regrettably, 15 people have been killed by the use of plastic bullets since 1970, about 100,000 plastic bullets have been fired during that period.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister not understand that families in Northern Ireland are still grieving because innocent children have been killed by plastic bullets? People have been maimed. Indeed, a woman that I have met was standing in her kitchen doing the washing up when she was blinded by a plastic bullet. When the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box to defend the use of plastic bullets, does he not think that he should at least express some regret for those totally innocent people who have been hurt, maimed and killed by the use of plastic bullets?

Mr. Stanley: I am very ready to express regret for the small minority of cases in which innocent bystanders have become casualties as a result of the firing of plastic bullets. I hope that, for her part, the hon. Lady will be ready to condemn those who have indulged in the throwing of petrol bombs and in all sorts of other extreme forms of violence in street disturbances in the Province.

School Leavers

Mr. Forth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many school leavers in Northern Ireland obtain one or more A-levels.

Dr. Mawhinney: In 1983–84, the latest year for which figures are currently available, the number was 6,217—about 22·5 per cent. of all school leavers.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on those excellent results? Will he explain to the House why those results are so excellent? Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to give him some guidance as to how we might achieve the same level of excellence on the mainland as we have managed in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. There are several excellent schools in Northern Ireland and parents are committed to ensuring that their children are educated as well as possible. I am sure that both those factors, together with the fact that in several schools the teaching is directed closely towards examinations, help to give the good A-level results that are achieved.

Scheduled Offences

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 July, Official Report, column 141, what is his estimate of the cost of listing the different representations received from


bodies and individuals, including the Government of the Republic of Ireland, concerning current arrangements for trying scheduled offences in the courts in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Assuming that only representations made since 1979 were covered, the estimated cost of identifying and listing them all is estimated to be in excess of £300.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is a small sum to pay to allow the House to know what input has been made into a reform of the justice system of our nation? Or, are we being led astray by the statements of his previous co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, who said that with the removal of Lord Hailsham we are getting ready to introduce three-judge courts in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman had tabled a direct question I would have been happy to answer it, but on this matter, as I have made clear before, we have listened to the arguments and at present are not persuaded of the merits of the case. That is the position and nobody should read more into it than what I have said. We are not persuaded of the arguments and our position remains as it was when I made my statement on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Gregory: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Gregory: Will the Prime Minister encourage local authorities this summer to put their services out to competitive tender, thereby securing savings of up to 30 per cent. in place of municipal Socialism?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we are introducing legislaton on this matter. It is a matter of regret that more local authorities have not taken this course of action, because had they done so they would have had substantial savings and a much more efficient service. We shall always encourage local authorities to produce services most efficiently. The local authority Audit Commission has made many proposals and has shown the scope for saving money.

Mr. Hattersley: Can the Prime Minister assure us that this morning's Cabinet meeting took an unequivocal decision not to reduce public expenditure in real terms next year?

The Prime Minister: We had an excellent Cabinet meeting this morning. We issued a statement as follows:
The Cabinet had its usual July discussion of public expenditure today. It reaffirmed the policy"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Indeed, for the sake of greater accuracy. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would want that.
It reaffirmed the policy that public expenditure should continue to take a declining share of national income, as set out in the last Public Expenditure White Paper,
et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister not know that exactly two hours ago journalists were briefed that this morning the Cabinet decided to maintain the public expenditure planning totals, which amounts to a cut next year in real terms? Why does she not have the guts to tell that to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman precisely what happened. Why does he not have the guts to accept it?

Mr. Michael Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety about reports that Her Majesty's Government have failed to reach agreement on an interdepartmental basis on the budget for space expenditure and that the proposal of the British National Space Centre for increased space activities will therefore be rejected? Does that not call into question our future commitment to the European Space Agency and to the BNSC?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it does. It is quite correct that we have not been able to find the considerable amount of extra expenditure that was requested. As my hon. Friend is aware, we spend through the taxpayer some £4·5 billion on research and development. We are not able to find any more resources. Therefore, it would mean a switch of resources from one research or technology development to another. My colleagues felt that they could not make that switch and therefore we shall continue our subscription to the European Space Agency, but at present we are not able to find more money. I hope that the private sector, if it is interested in the results from such research, will come forward with considerable resources.

Mr. Meale: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meale: Will the Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Foulkes: For greater accuracy.

Mr. Speaker: Try to paraphrase, please.

Mr. Meale: Will the Prime Minister extend her pledge and give a categorical guarantee that she will veto any attempt to introduce VAT on bus and rail fares or on newspapers?

The Prime Minister: I answered that question in detail last week. I am not quite sure to which of the three aspects the hon. Gentleman is referring. He is probably referring to the proposal before the Commission that there should be some approximation of value added tax. That proposal could be passed only by the unanimous vote of all countries. — [Interruption.] It is not a question of vetoing—we should vote against it. [Interruption.] That is not a veto; it is a vote against. A veto is the phrase used for the Luxembourg compromise— [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, the Opposition seem to know the answer.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that any agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons must not only be properly verifiable, but must ensure that NATO can deter aggression at whatever level it may occur?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has said. Any agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons must be thoroughly verifiable, so that we can see that people are carrying out what they say they will do. Of course, it would have to be phased, and that, too, would have to be verifiable. We must also examine it in relation to the state of other defences, particularly chemical and conventional weapons.

Mr. Steel: During her summer holidays, will the Prime Minister try to work out how she will explain to people serving in Her Majesty's forces that if, in the next few years, they are stationed in England they will pay no poll tax, but if they are transferred to Scotland they will pay such a tax without any corresponding increase in income? During the summer, will she try to find anyone outside the ranks of the Government who supports this ludicrous measure and report such a discovery to the House?

The Prime Minister: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is very much in favour of the community charge in Scotland. He knows full well why the Bill was brought forward in Scotland. Scotland has already suffered from the effect of a rating revalation, with disastrous consequences, such that we had to bring forward that legislation first. Legislation for England and Wales will follow.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Gorbachev's acceptance of the double zero option with regard to intermediate and shorter-range nuclear missiles is most welcome? Will she accept that it is almost entirely due to her determination and steadfastness, and to that of our ally, President Reagan, that this satisfactory state of affairs is being brought about and that it owes nothing to the activities of the Opposition, let alone the so-called peace movement?

The Prime Minister: It is reported that the Soviet Union is about to accept the global zero option for intermediate nuclear weapons. Its proposals will be tabled, it is expected, in Geneva this afternoon. Until they are tabled, we do not know whether the option has been accepted with any conditions attached. If it is without conditions, we warmly welcome it.
As my hon. Friend is aware, I referred to this matter in the House on 30 April, when I said:
We would prefer the Soviet Union to agree to a global zero-zero on intermediate nuclear weapons. So far it has been unwilling to do that, but that is what we shall continue to ask for."—[Official Report, 30 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 410.]
We shall indeed welcome it if the Soviet Union accepts it without conditions.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bidwell: Would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on his honesty, and good fortune, in disclosing to the Daily Telegraph that he stands to have the rates on his ancestral pile reduced from £2,000 to £300 under her new poll tax?

The Prime Minister: People who are paying heavy rates, unless they are within a very heavy spending local authority, will indeed gain. The people who will suffer from a community charge will be those who are under very

high-spending authorities. That is one of the purposes, but only one, of having a community charge, so that local authorities will be accountable to all their constituents and so that their constituents can judge whether the services are delivered efficiently.

Mr. Favell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today in the north people are looking to her for a poll tax to promote initiative and enterprise? For years, Left-wing councils have been promising that their high-spending, high-rating policies will protect jobs and services. Is not the reverse patently the case?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that a number of small firms are precluded from starting up in some of the areas where they are most needed because of the high rating policies of those local authorities. One of the purposes of introducing a community charge is to get a unified business rate, which will be a great advantage to those areas that need more private sector business. It is interesting that there have been record numbers of inquiries to our small firms centres about starting up small businesses. It may be that the expectation of a unified business charge is helping people to come forward.

Miss Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister please consider whether any of the proposed cuts in the 20 million tonnes of steel from the European Steel Community production should take place in the British Steel Corporation, in view of the fact that we have had higher percentage deductions in staffing and production than any other European steel producer?

The Prime Minister: That depends on the year from which one starts, as it always does. Under this Government, the British Steel Corporation has gone from a deficit of about £600 million a year to a considerable profit, and it is now working well. We shall have to work with the European Community on steel quotas and we shall, of course, do battle for our steel workers.

EC (Budgetary Control)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will invite the European Council to secure a report from the Commission on the operation and effectiveness of the strict budgetary controls agreed by the Council on 4 December 1984 before the Council gives further consideration to the Commission's proposals for extra funding linked to strict budgetary controls: and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The Commission reported on budget discipline in its two February papers on future financing of the Community. In the light of discussion at the June European Council it has undertaken to bring forward further proposals shortly. I made it clear that before the question of increasing Community resources can be addressed we must agree on effective and binding controls over Community spending, particularly agricul-tural spending.

Mr. Taylor: As the last round of "effective, binding controls" produced, instead of restraint, a series of


accounting devices, of which even Liverpool councillors would be ashamed, and an escalation in the cost of food dumping and food destruction to £240 million a week, with the Soviet Union and the Mafia being major beneficiaries, will my right in saying hon. Friend agree to stand firm in December and, instead of giving more money to the uncontrollable CAP, propose that we should return agricultural responsibility to member states?

The Prime Minister: I confess that I have some degree of sympathy with some of my hon. Friend's points—as one usually has. He is quite right in saying that we did not get a binding arrangement for financial discipline on the last occasion, and we must have it on this occasion. I do not think that we can abolish the common agricultural policy. There may have to be a degree of national financing, but it would have to be within a Community framework. My hon. Friend will know — he knows the common agricultural policy very well—that if one looks back to the treaty there is absolutely nothing wrong with the common agricultural policy. It is the way in which it has been operated in practice that we wish to cure.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I warn the House that this is not an open question.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the common agricultural policy a disaster? The Prime Minister makes a great pretence of being concerned about the complete lack of budgetary control, but will not the farm agreement cost this country £600 million this year and many more millions of pounds next year? As we have such a huge balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods, will the Prime Minister explain to the House clearly and succinctly what benefits we get from the Common Market, because it costs about £500 million to £1 billion to be a member of this absurd organisation?

The Prime Minister: No. I think that the original reason why we went in, and it was agreed by most hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was wise to go in, was a political one—that we should be part of the European Community. The Community's original purpose was to ensure not only that there was an Economic Community but that nations which had hitherto fought one another should in future work together in peace and for greater prosperity for them all.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the recess?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER — Second Reading of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
Followed by Second Reading of the Scottish Development Agency Bill.
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—Debate on the promotion of good health on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Hattersley: I have two specific questions to ask the Leader of the House. He will know very well that the consultation period for comments on the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of education ends on 16 September. That is an absurdly short period and it ends at a time calculated to stifle debate. Will the Leader of the House tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that Opposition Members regard that timetable as an intolerable burden and expect it to be extended?
Secondly, the Leader of the House knows equally well that the Council of Finance Ministers of the European Community meets in September to consider proposals to impose VAT on items which at present do not bear the tax — food, children's clothing, footwear, fuel and books. Will the right hon. Gentleman categorically assure us that the Government will not give even tacit agreement to the extension of VAT to any of these items until the House has been consulted?

Mr. Wakeham: First, on the consultation period on the education statement, I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Secondly, on the European Finance Ministers meeting in September and the question of VAT, I cannot add anything to the clear statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the registration and inspection of residential homes for old people? This is a matter of particular concern because yesterday an emergency procedure was invoked to deregister a residential home under the Registered Homes Act 1984. This involved the closure of The Haven old people's home at Gravesend in my constituency. We have also seen the publication of a report on the Nye Bevan lodge old people's home in Peckham. This is a matter of great urgency for many people.

Mr. Wakeham: These are very important matters. I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerning the first case. On the second case — Nye Bevan lodge — this is first a matter for the local authority and for the Director of Public Prosecutions. But my right hon. Friend is, of course, concerned with the wider implications of the report for the care of old people.

Mr. David Alton: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there is a delay in introducing the poll tax legislation because the Government are giving further consideration to exemptions for certain organisations, and especially those that are connected with churches, so that they can continue to pursue the welfare of the infirm, the dying, the homeless and others for which they care? Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to consider further the representations that I made to him about the establishment of a Northern Ireland Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: There has been no delay in the introduction of the community charge Bill. The Bill is being drafted and I expect it to be introduced on time. I am having further discussions with other hon. Members on how we deal with Northern Ireland business and seeking to find the best way forward.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that departmentally related Select Committees are set up as soon as possible after the House resumes following the summer recess? Does he appreciate that it is especially important that a Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is established to scrutinise the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can my right hon. Friend say when that statement is likely to be made?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to say when the autumn statement will be made. We have made some progress in setting up a number of Select Committees, and I hope that it will be possible to make further progress on the establishment of departmental Select Committees fairly soon after the House returns. I know that my right hon. Friend has helped very much in enabling us to make the progress that we have been able to achieve. I am only sorry that we have not made more.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to explain to the House why he is not giving private tenants and leaseholders the opportunity to compel their landlords to transfer their premises to the council, especially in the light of the appalling state of affairs of premises in my constituency that are known as Clive court, where a 78-year-old lady, amongst others, is living in the most terrible conditions of disrepair and neglect? So bad has the situation become that the council is being asked to take over the freehold.

Mr. Wakeham: It will be seen when my right hon. Friend introduces his housing Bill that it will make more progress towards improving the housing conditions of many in the community than the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable interest in the House and outside about the establishment of family courts, about which the Government issued a consultation paper. He will be aware also that a debate took place yesterday in another place on this subject. However, the issue has yet to be discussed in this place. Will he give the House an opportunity to discuss family courts before the Government come to conclusions and issue their proposals later in the year?

Mr. Wakeham: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says, and it seems that he has made a sensible


suggestion. I do not think that I can add anything of substance to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Leader of the House share the concern about the injunction issued by the Family Division of the High Court against a west Yorkshire mother who is concerned in child abuse proceedings that prevents her or her representatives from talking to anyone about the proceedings? Surely it cannot be right that such a person, who is obviously in distressing circumstances, is prevented from talking to a doctor, a solicitor, a priest, or even a Member of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate discussions with the President of the Family Division to ensure that clear advice is given to plaintiffs so that it is understood that consulting doctors, solicitors, priests and Members is not against the terms of such injunctions?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter. I appreciate that it is an issue of some concern. I do not think that I can helpfully comment on the substance of it, but I have been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I know that he will be happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have read the recommendations of the previous Parliament's Select Committee that investigated sound broadcasting. One of the recommendations was that the public should have the opportunity of dialling in to listen to our debates through the telephone system. When we return after the summer recess, will the House have an early opportunity of giving its approval to this imaginative proposal?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the chance to read the letter that I sent him earlier today on this subject. I hope that we can have a discussion early in the autumn to see what progress can be made.

Mr. Greville Janner: Did the Leader of the House see the remarkable and horrifying film on Scottish television yesterday evening about war criminals, which included precise evidence and witness accounts of the activities of one Antonas Gecas, who is now living in Edinburgh? Is there to be a debate, or will the Home Secretary make a statement? May we at least have an assurance that these allegations of the gravest kind about the foulest behaviour will be fully investigated by the Government without further delay?

Mr. Wakeham: I am afraid that I did not manage to watch the programme on Scottish television, but I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern, as do many other people, about the matter. I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend, if not in the first week after the summer recess, shortly thereafter, arrange a debate on care in the community? That subject is of deep concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend will be aware that his predecessor looked sympathetically upon requests from both sides of the House for a debate on the subject before irrevocable decisions relating to the closure of psychiatric hospitals are taken and their future is sold.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject and my hon. Friend's concern in the matter over the many years during which he has served on the Select Committee on Social Services. I recognise that we will have to examine the matter soon, and I shall do what I can.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House tell us how widespread are the discussions to which he referred in his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton) and which were referred to yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply about devolution? Will he find time in October for the House to discuss the concept of federation or devolution of the kingdom?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot guarantee a debate in October, but my discussions are as wide as any hon. Member wishes to make them. My door is open. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join in, I shall be happy to hear his views.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, for at least a year, many hon. Members endeavoured to persuade his predecessor to find time for a debate on science policy. Now that the Government have produced a most important, interesting, challenging and controversial White Paper on science policy and have made a number of extremely important suggestions on how such matters should be conducted, may I have his assurance that we will be able to discuss the matter in full soon after we return?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject and, indeed, my hon. Friend's considerable knowledge and interest in it over the years. The subject is suitable for debate, and I shall arrange one as soon as I can.

Dr. John Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make time available immediately after the recess for a debate on the closure of the Caterpillar tractor factory in Uddingston? Despite the efforts of any hon. Members on both sides of the House, and those of one of two of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, that closure is scheduled to take place on 15 August. The closure is particularly important because of current rumours that the Caterpillar corporation intends to cream off between £15 million and £50 million of its pension fund. I hope that Government Members will agree that the company has not only stopped the Government, looted taxpayers and abandoned its workers, but now intends to pilfer its pension fund. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should have a debate to ensure that any moneys that have accumulated in the fund should go where they deserve to go, and that is to the workers whose labour created them in the first place?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I recognise his and other hon. Members' concern about their constituents' jobs. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Every week I hear of more and more cases of people in the north who find work in the south but are simply not able to find accommodation to enable them to take up such jobs. When will my right hon. Friend's welcome proposals to reform the legislation on rented accommodation be brought before the House?

Mr. Wakeham: The housing Bill will be introduced fairly soon after we come back in October, and, as far as I am concerned, as quickly as possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the fact that the Leader of the House recognises the urgency of a debate on residential care for the elderly and that he is aware of the anxiety in Kent and in Southwark. When we have that debate, will he ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to concentrate specifically on the fact that when an inquiry was asked for and eventually undertaken by the DHSS inspectors they explicitly refused to look into the home—Nye Bevan—where the abuses took place? May we have an early explanation of why, when the Government were asked to intervene, they did not, with the tragic consequences that have unfolded for all to see?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate answer.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: If during the summer recess there should be an escalation in the Gulf crisis and the involvement of British warships in hostilities, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will be willing to consider the recall of Parliament for an emergency debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I assure my hon. Friend that, if the circumstances warranted it, I would set in train the necessary arrangements for the recall of the House; but that is not to say that I have any plans to do so now.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity after the recess for the House to consider the uprating of the old-age pension to ensure that pensioners will no longer suffer from the cruel cut caused by the Government's breaking the link between pensions and earnings?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government gave a clear pledge to maintain the old-age pension in excess of the increase in prices. They have done so, and I do not expect a debate in the week we come back.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the outcome of the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways, he will instigate a debate as soon as we return on the Government's competition policy in the light of that decision?

Mr. Wakeham: Competition policy generally is an important subject, and I hope that we shall debate it before too long, but I cannot give an undertaking that we will do so immediately we return.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the allegations by Britain's aircraft controllers that the British aircraft control system is now out of control, and the personal despair expressed by many aircraft controllers and their predictions of an inevitable major air disaster, may we have an emergency statement tomorrow morning so that we can question Ministers about what is happening at West Drayton and seek some assurances that those matters will be resolved?

Mr. Wakeham: Safety is the paramount concern of the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Control Service. Despite the considerable increase in

traffic, statistics show that the trend of risk-bearing near-misses is declining. The CAA has spent £125 million on improvements to the air traffic control system in the past five years and plans to increase investment in the future. But I will refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Why was not time found to make a statement, which we could question, on the Government's policy on space? Why was the information that we so much feared elicited in the Prime Minister's answer to the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall)? As these are important matters for Britain's long-term industrial, scientific and technical future, may we have a debate on space policy at the earliest possible moment after we return?

Mr. Wakeham: There are calls for debates on many subjects immediately we return. I agree that this is an important subject, but I can add nothing to the substance of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Has the Leader of the House read the article in The Guardian today alleging secret negotiations between the Government and a private consortium on the privatisation of the Carlisle to Settle line? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on that to the House tomorrow morning? Does he agree that it would be improper for a Minister to be involved in such negotiations at the same time as he was deliberating on British Rail's application to close the Carlisle to Settle line? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the role of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) in those negotiations?

Mr. Wakeham: Stories in The Guardian are not normally the best basis for deciding what are important matters to discuss in the House. Nevertheless, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether there is any statement that he needs to make.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend expect to see a copy of the report on the Zeebrugge disaster? If so, will he ensure that a statement is made to the House at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes. If the result of the inquiry is announced tomorrow, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House that there should be a Government statement on that important issue.

Mr. Dave Nellist: If, in answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Leader of the House believes that safety is of the utmost importance, will he arrange later today or tomorrow for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the ultimatum issued by Texaco Overseas Tankships Ltd. that British seafarers, due to return to the Gulf — a war zone — should sail or be sacked? Will he also arrange for that Department to investigate the report today in one national newspaper that tankers are being chartered to be sailed into the Gulf deliberately to be sunk for insurance purposes? Do the Government support profiteering at the expense of British seafarers' lives?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept very much, if anything, of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will refer it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: After our intermission during the summer, will my right hon. Friend arrange for us to debate the north-south divide so that this House can, once and for all, discover what it is supposed to be, where it is supposed to be and why the Liberal and Labour parties do not appreciate that north of it there is a place called Scotland which has infinite benefits that the English do not enjoy?

Mr. Wakeham: If I thought that a debate in this House would settle the matter. I would certainly arrange one. However, I am afraid that that debate will go on for much longer than that.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the demand made yesterday by the European Commission for a cut of 20 million tonnes a year in steel production and whether the British Steel Corporation is to be exempted from that demand? In the light of the statement made to the House by the former Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry on 23 March, following the last Council of Industry Ministers meeting of the European Community, which said that the British Steel Corporation would be exempt, and in the light of yesterday's statement by Commissioner Narjes, Commissioner for Industry, that the corporaton would not be exempt, does that not suggest that there was a strategum involving the corporation, the Government and the EC to mislead the House and the country before the election as to whether the British Steel Corporation would or would not be exempt from the latest round of steel production capacity cuts?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government accept that there remains about 20 million tonnes excess capacity in the European steel industry. As Ministers have made clear at Industry Council meetings, the main responsibility for correcting that situation lies with the loss-making producers on the continent. Yesterday's announcement concerned proposals by the Commission to deal with that situation. There was no United Kingdom input into those proposals. It is for the Council of Ministers, not the Commission to take the decision on the way forward. However, I hope to arrange a debate on European matters very soon after we return.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always very reluctant to deny hon. Members an opportunity to question the Leader of the House, but there are three statements to follow. I ask for brief questions. I shall endeavour to call those Members who have been standing, but we must try to get on.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion 2?
[That this House notes with deep regret the omission from Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech of any reference to the introduction of promised legislation to allow the House to reach a conclusion on the need for statutory protection for the human embryo against experimentation.]
It exemplifies the deep and widespread concern in all parts of the House about experiments on human embryos. Many hon. Members are concerned that the Government will issue the White Paper before we have a chance to

express an opinion. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the White Paper will be issued after we have had a chance to debate the matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of this subject and the concern expressed by many hon. Members. I shall certainly consider sympathetically the request for a debate and shall certainly have discussions about when is the most suitable time for it.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: If the disastrous trade figures continue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to take some measures to mitigate them, would the Leader of the House support the recall of Parliament?

Mr. Wakeham: There is a certain amount of hypothetical material in that question. I cannot say any more than I said earlier, that if circumstances arose— although I do not think that they will arise on the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises—I would certainly put steps in hand.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend find time during the autumn to have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which was published just before Parliament was dissolved, on problems associated with AIDS? Such a debate at an appropriate time would provide an opportunity to explore the Government's success in raising public awareness about the dangers of this disease and how it can be contracted.

Mr. Wakeham: It is not for me to say what will be in order, but it seems possible that with a little ingenuity my hon. Friend may well be able to make the points that he wants to make in the debate on Friday 23 October.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 112 concerning the imprisonment against strong medical advice of a young pregnant women for a first-time minor offence. The baby is due to he born next week.
[That this House deplores the decision of Judge John Edward Jones in rejecting an appeal against the three month prison sentence imposed on Paula Otemah, a 20-year-old pregnant woman, notes that Ms Otemah is 35 weeks pregnant and that according to the Senior Registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology at Liverpool Maternity Hospital is in danger of having an induced birth due to intrauterine growth retardation of the foetus; condemns the possibility of an innocent baby being born in prison; and calls upon the Home Secretary to order the release of this young woman, a first offender, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds and for the Lord Chancellor to put Judge John Edward Jones on the retired list forthwith.]
Will the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary order the release of this young lady on compassionate grounds? Will he also ask the Lord Chancellor permanently to retire geriatric judges who are in their middle 70s?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to discuss the disgraceful behaviour of some nationalised industries on planning matters in view of the fact that during a public inquiry into the Lomax site in Bolton, which would be the second largest


open-cast mine in Europe, British Coal was this morning forced to admit that it had misled the inquiry and was compelled to produce documents whose existence it had previously repeatedly denied to the inquiry?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in this matter and I shall refer it initially to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House have a look at the newspapers, including the Tory newspapers, of last week to see what a furore the new disciplinary code of conduct has caused in the coalfields about miners being disciplined for out-of-hours activities? Will he call upon the Secretary of State for Energy to issue a directive to British Coal to get rid of the code?

Mr. Wakeham: No. These are matters for the management, unions and work force of British Coal to work out for themselves. It is not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to get involved in the first instance.

Mr. James Couchman: On this day, when Mr. Gorbachev has made his positive response on the zero-zero option and on which some of us have had an opportunity to discuss with a high-level Soviet delegation matters concerning peace, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will call the annual debate on the defence White Paper very soon after the House returns? It is already well overdue.

Mr. Wakeham: We will have that debate fairly soon after we return. Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend's attention to the debate on Thursday 22 October. Some very important points about disarmament might well feature in that debate.

Mr. David Winnick: When the House returns, will the Attorney-General make a full statement on the Wright case, including a statement on the amount of money that has so far been spent? I understand that the figure is well over £300,000. If I may make a point about an earlier theme, is it not absolutely essential for the Home Secretary to make a statement about the person held responsible for the most monstrous Nazi war crimes and who is living in Edinburgh? Why on earth should this country of all countries, which for the first two years of the war virtually stood alone with our Commonwealth partners against the onslaught of the Nazi empire, give haven and refuge to a person accused of the most monstrous crimes against humanity? Will he really live the rest of his life in Britain?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add anything to what I said to the hon. Gentleman last week about the Wright case, that I would refer the point to the Attorney-General. I have already promised to refer the second matter to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for the Government's initiative on inner cities? Is he also aware of the concern that at the same time we should protect our countryside? Is he further aware of the concern that our present planning system is incapable of doing both jobs? Will he arrange an early debate on the need for the reform of our planning system?

Mr. Wakeham: I realise that those are important matters and are of continuing concern to many hon. Members. I will see what can be done, but I cannot promise a debate in the early future.

Mr. Bill Michie: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is to be an important statement after this debate and that, whatever the contents of the statement, there will be little or no opportunity to discuss it? We are going into a summer recess, during which time problems may arise in local government over which we can have little influence. Therefore, will he arrange a debate immediately that the House resumes so that we are not faced with a fait accompli?

Mr. Wakeham: I hope I can say with some humility that whilst I was Chief Whip we seemed to have more debates on those matters than I could have chosen. I have a feeling that after the statements by my right hon. Friends this afternoon there will be many other opportunities to come back to those matters.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Further to earlier questions from my hon. Friends about the significance of the talks that have just been concluded with Russian parliamentarians under the aegis of the Inter-parliamentary Union, following as they do the visit of Mr. Gorbachev and his parliamentary delegation and a return visit led by my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), can my right hon. Friend say what he may be able to do to help the House debate the wider questions of British-Soviet relations in the near future?

Mr. Wakeham: I know that those are matters of concern to my hon. Friend and to hon. Members in many parts of the House. In the course of the summer there will be contacts at the highest level. I hope that they will continue to be fruitful.

Mr. Tony Banks: I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the crisis facing the air traffic control system. Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read the article in The Independent today in which air traffic controllers made it clear that they believe that a major air disaster is inevitable given the lack of investment and the poor technology in the air traffic control system at present? As the holiday season is upon us and members of Parliament will no doubt be also taking to the airways soon — after all, by-elections are very expensive to the public purse—and in view of the great public concern and the widespread alarm that will no doubt arise from that article, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make an urgent statement tomorrow so that he can discuss those concerns?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to the statement that I have already made.

Mr. Graham Allen: In view of the sincere and heartfelt pleas from hon. Members for debates on important issues, will the Leader of the House consider shortening the length of the summer recess?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that is entirely a matter for me. The House has debated the question of the summer recess. I did not notice which way the hon. Gentleman voted.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Leader of the House aware that British Rail has denied that the Settle-Carlisle line — 80 miles of spectacular scenery — will be flogged off to a private consortium? If any announcement is made during the recess, it will be exposed as a shabby conspiracy of deception. To avoid that, will he ensure that there is a statement tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Transport about the retention of the line to clarify the position, or that there is an answer to my question that is down for answer tomorrow? If that is not possible, will he assure the House that there will not be a statement when the House is not sitting and that the Minister will wait until we return before making any statement so that he is accountable to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's agreement that everything that one reads in The Guardian is not necessarily true. I do not think I can add anything other than to say that I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton operates at a very high standard? Will he consider the possibility of a debate at an early date to reassure the public that nothing serious is amiss with our air safety measures?

Mr. Wakeham: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about West Drayton. I will certainly see what I can do about a debate.

Rate Support Grant (England)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, I should like to make a statement about local government finance for 1988–89.
With the passage of the Government's forthcoming legislation, this will be the penultimate rate support grant settlement. By 1990 the new system, which will be both fairer and easier to understand, will take its place. The level of an authority's spending will be clearly and directly reflected in the level of its community charge.
We must, however, bear with the present arrangements for two more years and my proposals for 1988–89 are as follows.
I propose to set current expenditure provision at £27·538 billion. This is a cash increase of £838 million on the provision for 1988–89 published in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper, and represents a 7 per cent. increase on the gross amount provided for the current year. It will allow non-rate-capped authorities to hold their spending broadly level in real terms. Rate and precept-limited authorities will be set expenditure levels which imply real reductions in spending in most cases.
Authorities continue to spend more than I believe they need to. I therefore propose to maintain a margin between the total of grant-related expenditure and expenditure provision. Authorities owe it to their ratepayers — and prospective community charge payers — to do all they can to keep spending down. The measures now before the House in the Local Government Bill will make a big contribution. Authorities need not wait for enactment to start implementing more cost-efficient practices and contracting out more services. Authorities should concentrate on reducing their payroll bills — both by negotiating settlements which reflect the continuing low rate of inflation, and also by reversing the recent steady upward drift in manpower, which has risen by about 0·75 per cent. over the last year.
I propose to provide authorities with £13·775 billion in aggregate Exchequer grant. This is a cash increase over 1987–88 of £750 million or 5·75 per cent. It will maintain the grant percentage at the same level as this year after taking account of the additional grant we made available for teachers' pay — 46·2 per cent. of relevant expenditure. I do not propose any major changes in the mechanisms for grant distribution and, as this year, authorities spending up will lose grant.
I believe that those proposals provide a fair framework in which authorities can operate next year. It will mean that if they do not spend more than the realistic provision that I have announced that we propose, the average increase in rate bills for non-rate-capped authorities should be around the rate of inflation, though as always there will inevitably be considerable variations around that average. Ratepayers in rate-capped authorities can expect lower increases, or, indeed, reductions. For the position of individual authorities, hon. Members will need to wait until the announcement of my detailed proposals in the autumn, but I emphasise that actual rate bills will depend on the spending decisions of each individual authority.
I am today laying before the House a report setting out how authorities will be selected for rate limitation next year. I am selecting authorities not selected in 1987–88


whose budgets are at least 12·5 per cent. above GRE and show growth of at least 6 per cent. since 1986–87. I am reselecting those authorities that were selected in the current year whose budgets are at least 12·5 per cent. above GRE. On those criteria, five authorities not selected in 1987–88 — Ealing, Kingston upon Hull, Liverpool, Manchester and Waltham Forest—are selected. Twelve authorities are reselected — Basildon, Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Lewisham, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Southwark, Thamesdown and Tower Hamlets. Together with the authorities subject to automatic precept control under the Local Government Act 1985, this will mean that, in all, the Government will next year be limiting the rates or precepts of 37 authorities with expenditure totalling over £4 billion.
I am today also setting the expenditure levels for the 17 rate-capped authorities. For reselected authorities, there will be a cash standstill on implied expenditure levels for 1987–88 with an allowance for the full-year costs of the 1987 school teachers pay settlement. All the five newly selected authorities have budgeted in 1987–88 for a significant increase in spending. Therefore, I am setting their expenditure levels at a 6 per cent. increase over their 1986–87 budget with again an allowance for teachers' pay.
I am, of course, open to representations for redetermination of expenditure levels. Last year, I said that, where an application for redetermination of an expenditure level was made on certain limited grounds, I did not intend to use my powers under the Rates Act either to reduce the expenditure level or to impose conditions following an increase. The Rates Act procedures are now well established, and I should make it clear from the start of this year's round that I will not be giving any such undertaking.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, for Education and Science, and for Transport will be making separate announcements about expenditure levels for the Inner London education authority and the joint authorities which are subject to precept limitation under the Local Government Act 1985.

Dr. John Cunningham: What a contrast this statement is from that of last year, when the Secretary of State said that he wanted to be realistic and even generous with the rate support grant settlement. We are continually told by Ministers that the economy is stronger than ever—indeed, they claim that Britain is booming—but this settlement falls £1·2 billion short of the unanimous view of all local government associations, with support by Tory as well as Labour Members for that figure.
Why is this shortfall necessary? What a contrast it is with last year, before an election. This year, after it, the Government revert to their long-standing policy of increasing the burdens on ratepayers and failing to match the cash needs to maintain essential services, leaving councils with the option of either increasing the rates or cutting the quality, flexibility and sensitivity of the services that so many people desperately need and rely on.
How can the Secretary of State pretend that local authorities can maintain expenditure in real terms when there is a major shortfall in the cash that he is making available in the settlement? Have not, just this week, Her

Majesty's inspectors of education made it clear in their report that one in five of all classes in our schools are working in such awful conditions that it is
having an adverse effect on the quality of work
that children and teachers are able to produce?
Does not this settlement imply further cuts in education budgets at a time when most people recognise that we should be increasing expenditure? How does the Secretary of State square that and his penalties on authorities which he claims overspend with the Secretary of State for Education's boast about increased expenditure in education in some authorities? Who has got it right? Whom are we to believe?
Does not the statement also make nonsense of the Government's claim to be making the inner cities a priority for support, when this shortfall and the controls on rates will make it even more difficult for exactly those authorities to make a more effective contribution to solving the problems that millions of their people face? Will not this settlement mean that all authorities, including many Tory-controlled councils, seeking simply to maintain their existing levels of expenditure and services, will be penalised and forfeit grant to the Treasury? What has the Secretary of State to say to those Tory councils, and to his hon. Friends who represent them and those communities?
Have not some police authorities and chief constables, like James Anderton most recently, already made it clear that they cannot meet the requirements of proper policing? How will they be able to do that and find the money for the latest police pay award with this settlement?
Although we do not accept the principle, we recognise the Government's determination to press ahead with rate limitation, but why has the Secretary of State decided this year not to have any discussion on the basis of partial redetermination? He did that last year. He made it clear in his statement that he would do so. Will he reconsider this? We are not aware of any particular problems caused by partial redetermination. On the contrary, it seems to have worked reasonably well for both sides. I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider that matter because it would be to his advantage, as well as helpful to some local authorities that are affected.
Does not this inadequate settlement mean that the very poorest people in Britain who, from April next year, for the first time under the new social security regulations will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates bill, will now face even bigger charges? Is this not typical of the unfairness of the Government's approach to the sharing of burdens in our society? As the Secretary of State in his statement said that this already unfair system will be replaced with a flat-rate poll tax, how does he square his claims of fairness in a poll tax with the Prime Minister's statement some time ago that any system that replaces rates should be based on the ability of people to pay?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood my statement. I would be happy to repeat it, but I think that that would be tedious for my hon. Friends, who clearly did understand it. This is not a reduction in grant. The hon. Gentleman might he interested to know that the Government have made provision that is 7 per cent. greater than the provision for this year, and grant that is 5·75 per cent. greater than the grant for this year,
when inflation between the two years is expected to be 4 per cent. That is both provision and grant greater than the rate of inflation.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities went on record last week as saying in a newspaper:
This year, anything less than £1 bn would be quite tough. Anything less than £500m would be very difficult.
We have got it exactly between the two at £750 million, so I imagine that the AMA finds it quite tough but not very difficult. I am grateful for its support, expressed in advance of the Government's settlement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about grant forfeit. I remember well last year how the hon. Gentleman predicted that local authorities would forfeit about £500 million of grant due to the abolition of recycling. He will be interested to know that the figure that I have is about £270 million, which shows the extent to which the abolition of grant recycling has persuaded authorities to moderate their spending.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that if local authorities next year hold their spending level in real terms, then they need have on average no greater rate bill increases than the rate of inflation. Surely it is not too much to ask of the authorities that they should make those economies that are available to them and keep their spending within the rate of inflation, in which case, nobody who pays rates will have to pay more rates, on average, but what they actually pay will depend entirely on how much their local authority spends
The hon. Gentleman asked about the undertaking in relation to the redetermination of rate limits. Undertakings were given in the past two years that if authorities applied for redetermination on grounds as to how to accommodate mainly their creative accounting, we would not contemplate either conditions or reductions in rate limits as a result of that further negotiation. I merely withdraw that undertaking for the year in advance because it is no longer necessary. We are withdrawing not redertermination but conditions.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that much the best thing that he can do with the rate support grant is to do away with it altogether, and that his plans to do just that are therefore welcome? Will my right hon. Friend also undertake, in his future plans for reform, to aim to see that local authority services and functions are tailored and limited as far as possible to what can be raised in local taxation, so that the mechanism and arrangements for subvention from the central taxpayer to the local authorities are limited to what is genuinely needed, and no more.

Mr. Ridley: I could not agree more strongly with my right hon. Friend that the way to deal with the complicated and unfair system of rate support grant, as it has become over the years, is to abolish it and start again. I assure my right hon. Friend that the new system of needs grant, standard grant and the national non-domestic rate will be much easier to understand. Its incidence will be much fairer on authorities. The burden that local authorities should he asked to cover financially can be adjusted up or down by reducing or increasing the amount of Government grant commensurate with the functions that local authorities have to fulfil. It would not be right for me to go into that wider and philosophical question, on a technical statement on the rate support grant.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the job losses that will arise from what will widely be seen as a vindictive decision to rate-cap Manchester? Is he aware that job losses in the public sector, in a city where unemployment is already unacceptably high, will immediately lead to further job losses in the private sector? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly defend a decision that makes a complete nonsense of all the Government's sloganising about regenerating our inner cities?

Mr. Ridley: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to tell him that Manchester city council's spending has increased by 38 per cent. and that the rates have gone up by 26 per cent. since last year. The result of that is to threaten massive job losses. It is the most cruel and cynical way to create unemployment in that city. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to say what he has done this afternoon. The way that we can help him, against his own city council, to create more jobs in Manchester is to limit rates so that businesses can survive and continue to employ his constituents.

Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to rate-cap the London borough of Ealing will be warmly welcomed by domestic and industrial ratepayers in the borough, who are appalled at the extravagance and irrelevance of much local government expenditure and made their views known at the general election? Will my right hon. Friend deal robustly with any application for redetermination from Ealing, as all ratepayers know that huge potential savings can be made without any reduction in services? Can my right hon. Friend tell us by how much the rates would go down if he stuck to his announced expenditure target?

Mr. Ridley: The local rate in Ealing this year went up by 72 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that there could even be a connection between that and the majorities of my hon. Friends who represent that borough. I do not think that it is a direct ratio, but there might he an even greater relationship between the majorities and the community charge if that were in place. I cannot forecast the rate for Ealing at the moment. The effects of the settlement on individual authorities cannot be predicted until later in the autumn. However, I shall be happy to see any authority that applies for redetermination. Of course, I cannot say in advance what the result might be.

Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, every time the local electorate in a borough, city or county votes Labour instead of Conservative, the people may expect the following year to be rate-capped until the Government introduce the poll tax, which will be based purely on the ability to pay and not on citizenship, which has been accepted as democracy over the past 100 years? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the system of rate-capping authorities, which completely dislocates the financial planning process, is anathema to the financial experts and treasurers in local authorities throughout the country because his decision mean a reduction one year and the lifting of rate capping from some authorities the next, which makes planning almost impossible?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the ability of local authorities to meet the needs of their areas,


particularly in inner cities, about which the Prime Minister, he and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have pledged their concern, is made impossible by not allowing local authorities to determine for themselves what to do? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures that he mentioned in relation to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities anticipated the consolidation of the teachers' pay and the subsequent grant increase, not its withdrawal, so the figures that he suggests will initiate a substantial rate increase in many authorities, which he will then hold up as a reason for introducting the poll tax next spring?

Mr. Ridley: The effect of the teachers' pay settlement restructuring has been included in the figures that I gave, as I imagine the figures that I quoted from the AMA have been, too. The hon. Gentleman started philosophising at the beginning of his supplementary question about the relationship between rate capping and high spending, and electing various parties, but I should have thought that, from the London experience, he might see it this way. Once a Labour council is elected, the next stage is extremely high rate increases, the next stage is rate capping and the next stage is the election of a Tory Government or of a Tory council in its place.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best part of his statement was the information that all the nonsense of the rate support grant and the absurd rating system has only two more wretched years to go? I appreciate that this is a local statement, but does my right hon. Friend recall that a promise was made some years ago that in the rate support grant there would be much greater fairness to the shire counties? Can he therefore give an assurance that when the details are worked out, they will not be expected to subsidise incompetent local authorities? In particular, can my right hon. Friend assure me that no excuse will be provided for incompetent and inefficient county councils, such as the Lib-Lab Cambridgeshire county council, to use the settlement as an excuse for further inefficiency?

Mr. Ridley: I can only share with my hon. Friend the joy at the thought that this is the penultimate rate support grant settlement. I might be even more enthusiastic about that prospect than him and my other hon. Friends because I have to do it. I cannot predict the effects of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 working through as a result of the general statement that I have made. A formula in that Act operates on the needs formula as well as on the rateable value of each authority. That combination has taken grant from the shire counties on the whole and moved it to other authorities. That cannot be arrested until our mutual dream of the abolition of the system is achieved.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State correct one misapprehension, that when and if the community charge is introduced, there will still be Government support for local government? The right hon. Gentleman is not saying, is he, that in two years' time all taxpayers' contributions to any local government services will end under the community charge, because that is far worse than anybody anticipated. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the hon. Member for

Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, that his officials and local authority officers agreed that the amount needed for services to be sustained at their present level was £29 billion, £1·5 billion more than the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, so there is a necessary underfunding?
Lastly, if the Government are committed to the inner city, why have eight inner-London boroughs been rate-capped, along with Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, reducing their funds in coming years, when they are just the places where homelessness and unemployment are greatest and where regeneration depends on money coming from the Government and those who can afford to pay?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman kindly asked me to remove his misapprehensions, and I am happy to remove all three of them. First, if he had read the Green Paper, the Conservative party's manifesto and other documents, he would have known that Government support will continue, but instead of being in the form of a rate support grant it will be in the form of a needs grant together with a standard grant—not the same thing, and based on a different principle.
Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman has any misapprehensions about the expenditure groups to which he referred, I can tell him that those are merely the bids of local authorities for extra spending and are in no sense agreed by Government.
Thirdly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the rates in his and similar boroughs are inimical to the regeneration of the inner city rather than a help, in the sense that they drive away employers and businesses, causing the loss of jobs and income, and the very problems for which we are trying to find solutions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have two further statements before an important series of Northern Ireland debates. I shall endeavour to call every hon. Member if questions are brief, but it may be difficult.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that within the allocation of the rate support grant there will not be a switch to metropolitan districts at the expense of shire counties, which traditionally have run much better managed budgets?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance because the rate support grant formula is enshrined in statute and works according to the rateable values and needs figures for each authority. He will have to await the results in the autumn to see such effects.

Mr. Robert Parry: How will Liverpool city council be affected? Are the Government seeking confrontation with the newly elected Labour council? Is that why the Prime Minister has changed her mind about visiting Liverpool during the summer recess? Does she not have the guts to meet the people of Liverpool? If the Prime Minister will not visit Liverpool, will the right hon. Gentleman at least pay a visit to see things at first hand?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has his answer in the fact that Liverpool has the third highest domestic rate in the United Kingdom at 304p. That is damaging to those who would set up in business there and provide jobs. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not care, but we do,


and that is why it is convenient and helpful that Liverpool falls within the criteria. I hope that that will encourage businesses to return to that city.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of ratepayers in local authorities which play the game will see today's announcement as a sensible settlement? Does he agree that it is the duty of local councils to manage their affairs as efficiently as possible? If so, what does he propose to do to bring to their senses those local authorities that are allowing rent arrears to rip to over £200 million in the past 12 months? Furthermore, will he ensure that local authorities such as Manchester city council and others do not revert to bogus leaseback schemes and other forms of deferred purchase to get round his guidelines?

Mr. Ridley: I thank my hon. Friend. The settlement is fair, but it is fairly tough in the sense that it does not simply acknowledge local authority spending sprees. Only prudent authorities which contain their spending will find it easy to live with. However, as my hon. Friend says, help is at hand through the Local Government Bill and the many possible savings of up to £2 billion which the Audit Commission's report has identified. I cannot say anything at this stage about creative accounting, but I have noticed some signs that the lenders are finding lending less attractive than they used to, and they are wise to do so.

Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement today will be seen as real poppycock by those who serve in and work for local government? Is he aware that, when he talks about holding expenditure in real terms, he must realise that he is starting from a low base? Is he also aware of the damage to roads and so on, and of the problem of community care? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is sending people, such as the disabled, the mentally ill and the elderly, from hospital into he community? Will he ensure that there is no shortfall in the provision for community care which is being taken over by local government?

Mr. Ridley: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he speaks of a low base. This year, as far as we know, local authorities are spending 3 per cent. more than the rate of inflation compared with last year. If one goes back further, since 1981–82, real local authority spending has increased by 14 per cent. whereas in the same period real Government spending has increased by only 6 per cent. We are not seeing a settlement from a low base. The Government are waiting to see whether local authorities can take the necessary measures to cut out waste and extravagance and bring their budgets under control. If they can, they can easily live with the settlement.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I give my right hon. Friend's statement a guarded welcome, but when he abolishes this travesty of a system which is unfair to counties such as Essex, will he reward those counties which are prudent and efficient and penalise those which are not?

Mr. Ridley: Did my hon. Friend give a Guardian welcome, or did I mishear him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Guarded."] My hon. Friend is right about the unfairness of the system on counties such as Essex, but Essex could do more to contain its spending. It will be able to keep a low rate increase if it can keep a low spending increase.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister take his nose out of the works of Adam Smith for a moment and look a little wider? Let me put to him an argument that he might understand—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question, please?

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister consider that the laws of supply and demand — which he may well understand because he knows a lot about that — cannot be met under his proposals because the necessary social services for elderly people cannot be met by rate-capped local authorities any more than the housing needs of the homeless can be met without a massive increase in capital building? Instead of trying to control local government expenditure by Government diktat, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the needs of inner-city areas and be prepared to pay the money necessary to take out of the lives of millions of people the misery caused by the Government.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman would be welcome at a teach-in on the laws of supply and demand. He will know that supply and demand are equal when the price is such that the market clears. In the case of local authority spending, there is no such price and many of the services about which he is talking are not paid for, so there is no conceivable possibility of the market clearing. Therefore, there must be a limitation on the total expenditure. On this occasion I have produced a limitation that is well in excess of inflation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that rather than make such grudging comments.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend explain the total amount of overspend for local authorities and the effect that that is having on other authorities? What news can he give me for the residents of Sheffield, Hallam'? Although I realise that the city is not rate-capped, the last time that rate capping occurred, the hike in rates was penal and extra rates were levied by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who, I believe resigns his leadership of Sheffield city council at midnight tonight?

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has become my hon. Friend's hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brightside should remain an hon. Member because of the different views that he nd my hon. Friend hold about what is good for business in that city. I hope that the possibility of rate limitation might have a slight deterrent effect, and that those who cannot be limited might fear such limitation and have in mind the possibility that keeping their rates low may help business and jobs in the city.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Secretary of State aware that in a constituency such as mine, which is an older metropolitan borough, surgeries are crowded, not by irate ratepayers telling me that they pay too much in rates, but by people who demand improved services, more home helps, better roads and pavements, and more nursery school places? Why does the right hon. Gentleman see his duties as Secretary of State for local government in such a one-sided fashion that he is concerned only about trying to keep down, as far as he can, the expenditure of councils such as Oldham, which has never overspent? Why does he not concern himself


instead with the real duty of local government, which is to meet the demands of the people who have elected the council, and who are prepared to pay the rates to sustain those services?

Mr. Ridley: I quite accept from the hon. Gentleman that his surgeries are not crowded with irate ratepayers. However, I advise him that mine are, because about £1 billion of rate support grant has been taken from the south of England and given to the north. The people who must pay that £1 billion are represented by many of my hon. Friends, and they go to their surgeries asking whether it is fair. The least that the hon. Gentleman can do as a result of that massive switch of resources from south to north is to avoid supplementary questions as griping and ungrateful as the one that he has just put.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the biggest source of complaints that I receive in my surgery is high rates? What satisfaction have my constituents in Derbyshire received when our county has not been rate-capped? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are the highest-rated county in the country and that my constituents will be extremely disappointed by his statement today that we have not been rate-capped?

Mr. Ridley: The only consolation to the citizens of Derbyshire is that my hon. Friend was elected, and that the chairman of the county council was not. I congratulate my hon. Friend, but advise him that authorities can be rate-capped only if they fall within the criteria that I have set forth. It is not selection. Rate capping applies only to those authorities that fall within the criteria, and Derbyshire does not.

Mr. Max Madden: What help will the statement bring to the city of Bradford, which has had its rate support grant cut by the Government by more than £70 million since 1979? If the Prime Minister has chickened out of a visit to Liverpool, will the Secretary of State suggest that he and she visit the city of Bradford, and when they arrive, will they announce a substantial increase in rate support grant for the city so that more of my constituents can live in decent homes, have their children attend schools that are not falling down, and live in an environment that is not decaying before their eyes?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cited three examples: schools, the environment and housing which, of course, are not covered by the rate support grant. They are capital items in the local authority's budget and in no sense does the statement that I have made today refer to them. However, I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman. On average, rate support grant has increased by 5·75 per cent., which will benefit his constituents and those of all other hon. Members.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the people of Ealing for his decision to rate-cap them? I advise him briefly that pensioners are going without food to find the 65 per cent. rates increase. Many jobs are being lost in industry and the purchasing power which is taken out of the economy means that there is less money available for shopkeepers to sell their goods, and that they themselves have higher rates to pay. Haircuts to pensioners are up by 60p. Will my

right hon. Friend tell the House what the rate in Ealing would be if the formula that he has mentioned were applied?

Mr. Ridley: I have received congratulations about this from practically every resident in Ealing, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps that has been delayed in the post and will be with me soon. I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure for which he asked without some notice, but I shall give him as much information as I can immediately. I agree that high rates cause poverty and deprivation among the poor and drive away jobs. The loss of jobs drives away income, and that limits the ability of an area to generate wealth for itself.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that I am anxious to call all hon. Members, but I must ask for brief questions, or that will not happen.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although the decision to release the metropolitan borough of Gateshead from rate capping will be welcomed, given the financial regime that the Government have imposed on local government, that council can protect its services and jobs only at a cost to the ratepayer? Is he also aware that the continued rate capping of Newcastle, which shares inner-area partnership status with the metropolitan borough of Gateshead, gives the lie to the Government's crocodile tears for inner-city problems?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must understand the point. He seemed to miss it again. He said that Gateshead could protect jobs and services only at the expense of the ratepayers. That is to put jobs at a low priority because jobs are provided by people who pay rates. Until he and his hon. Friends understand that high rates cause unemployment — [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman has taken that point on board we shall be making a little progress.

Mr. David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, as a result of representations that some of us made to his ministerial colleagues last autumn, he changed the way in which the safety nets operated and that that was of some help to counties such as Bedfordshire? Is similar help over safety nets built into the proposals that he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Ridley: We have not yet done further detailed work on the unallocated margin, the safety net, the cap on gains, or on the service distributions. Until that further work is done, it is impossible to analyse the possible results on each authority. That announcement is usually made in the early autumn.

Mr. Robin Corbett: So that I may, with greater accuracy, take this so-called good news immediately to the city of Birmingham, will the Secretary of State say exactly how much new and extra money the city will receive from this settlement to maintain and develop needed services and to give greater attention to the increasing demands of inner-city decay?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot predict the result for individual authorities. However, the total extra Government grant is £750 million gross to the whole country.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire used to be one of the


lowest-rated counties in England and Wales, but is now one of the highest-rated counties? Is he further aware that that is solely due to the profligacy of Derbyshire county council? Is it not time to put an end to the long suffering of the ratepayers in Derbyshire, to draw the teeth of the little Lenins at Matlock, and to rate-cap Derbyshire immediately?

Mr. Ridley: I would not like to interfere in the adjectives that my hon. Friend uses. I can only say that this year Derbyshire does not fall within the criteria of rate capping. Equally, it would be helpful if at the next elections the county council was called to account for the rates that it has imposed.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Government have any conception of the problems of the inner cities and genuinely intend to resolve them, which jobs and services does the right hon. Gentleman want Manchester council to cut?

Mr. Ridley: Obviously, I shall not discuss the detailed possibilities of any given authority. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that authorities which keep a low rate and run efficient services are doing very much better at attracting jobs and solving problems than those which believe that the future lies only in taking on surplus council staff as a sort of bogus way of creating jobs in the inner city.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any indication about the effects of his announcement today on northern metropolitan district councils? Can he confirm that if councils such as my local authority of Kirklees were quickly to contract out local services and to improve efficiency, they could probably reduce the rates?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The opportunities for savings exist through providing council services more cheaply after putting them out to competitive tender—whether contracted out or not: that is not the point — even in advance of the Local Government Bill. Once it is on the statute book, they will have to do that. It is intolerable for councils to complain that they have insufficient money when it is well known that more than £2,000 million could be saved by councils increasing their efficiency. They must attend to that first.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Does the Secretary of State realise that the people of Manchester have completely rejected the Government's policies on rate support grant by kicking out the last Tory from Manchester council? Does he realise that our spending is based on the needs of the people, of whom over 50 per cent. live in poverty? Will he explain why he will attend the Cabinet Committee meetings on inner cities although he does not understand the link between local government finance and the need to regenerate inner cities? Finally, will he withdraw the despicable answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? Does he not understand that thousands of jobs have been lost in the public and private sectors because of rate-capping Manchester?

Mr. Ridley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, together with some of his hon. Friends, will get the point that Manchester, with a rate of 336p in the pound, has the highest rate in the country. Any business which is thinking of choosing a location and providing jobs is unlikely to pick the council with the highest rate in the land; it is the

last place they will go. The difficulties created by the hon. Gentleman and the city council are among the main causes of inner-city problems.

Mr. Robert Key: I know that my right hon. Friend is sensitive to the fact that in areas where the economy is expanding, such as in Wiltshire, a great deal of development, much of which is opposed by the local authority, leads to compulsory infrastructure expenditure. Does he agree that the time has come for the developer to pay for that infrastructure, thereby releasing the burden of expenditure from the local authority?

Mr. Ridley: I have heard of arrangements between developers and local authorities where something of that sort takes place, but I do not think that we should get into the position where there seems to be a payment for planning permission of that sort. Local authorities receive grants and capital allocations tailored to their needs to provide for the infrastructure. The trouble is that the total of those needs throughout the whole country is inevitably greater than the money that can be afforded.

Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Secretary of State get it into his head that it is not high rates that cause unemployment but high interest rates, low investment and over-valuation of the pound? Those are the major causes of unemployment in the inner cities and elsewhere. Will he begin to understand that no local authority likes to increase the rates? Local authorities increase rates to meet the needs of the community — needs which have been exacerbated by the Government's policy. Before the right hon. Gentleman, with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and others starts criticising, will he realise that the substantial rate increases in those boroughs were caused by years of dereliction when the Conservatives controlled those councils? When will he start defending the system of local democracy and local government accountability instead of coming here and acting like some Stalinist bootboy on the orders of—[Interruption.]—No. 10?

Mr. Ridley: I understand that I have to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being made a Whip. Having listened to him on many occasions, I hope that Opposition Whips are not like Government Whips in the sense that they cannot talk, because every time he opens his mouth he helps us greatly. Naturally, interest rates are extremely important. If the Government were to increase the grant, as the Opposition seem to want, or local authorities were to increase spending, as they are talking of, there would be massive increases in interest rates which would indeed be damaging to jobs in all hon. Members' constituencies, not just the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I represent a constituency on the edge of Liverpool and I am a Mancunian born and bred. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the one thing both those communities need is jobs and that the one thing likely to create them is the rate capping of those two profligate authorities, which he has just done? In the light of the Audit Commission's recommendations that £1·5 billion-worth of savings can be made by local authorities, what action will he take to encourage them to make those savings?

Mr. Ridley: During my hon. Friend's question I thought that I almost heard the ghost of Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, but my hon. Friend is much more eloquent.
His figure of £1·5 billion of savings being possible for local authorities is an underestimate. The Audit Commission has estimated that perhaps £2 billion could be saved. Certainly, there is considerable confidence that the Local Government Bill alone could result in savings of up to £500 million.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why do the Government not treat other public institutions in the same way as they treat local authorities which are rate-capped, such as Manchester and Liverpool? Why, for example, should the Prime Minister's costs at No. 10 Downing street have increased 100 per cent. beyond the rate of inflation since Jim Callaghan left, as we have been informed in answers this week? Why has she not been rate-capped? May we have a guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman's statement today will stand up in a court of law? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]

Mr. Alistair Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable damage done to the reputation of the north-west and its vital capacity to attract outside investment by the activities of such councils — once great city councils — as Liverpool and Manchester? Is he aware that his decision today to rate-cap Manchester will be seen as a welcome warning of good sense and will be welcomed by many outside the city who love it and have mourned its decline in recent years?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The more I hear from Opposition Members about the problems of Manchester and Liverpool, the more I am beginning to think that they are the problem.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the calls he made in his statement for local authorities to address the 0·75 per cent. drift in manpower which he identified last year, is the Secretary of State saying that local authorities such as Cumbria should not appoint social workers to pursue people who abuse children, should not appoint lollypop ladies, teachers for nursery schools, and the people who play a vital part in underpinning every community? Why should they not have the right to appoint those people when they know that the general public want those appointments made?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a distinction between the needs of people to be in grace and to perform desirable functions and the need to have the right number of those people and not an excessive number. During the past eight years the Government have reduced the Civil Service by about 135,000 people, while at the same time they have provided much better quality government. That is an example which local authorities should follow.

Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Made!) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) will not reassure either the leaders or residents of careful counties such as Kent, and the residents in my district authority, which is the most careful district authority in the country, that there will be no artificial shift of money from the shire counties to the cities. Will he reassure them that, when he says there will

be no major changes in the mechanism for distribution, he means that there will be no artificial shift of resources from the shires to the cities?

Mr. Ridley: When I was talking about there being no major changes in the mechanisms, I was referring to the slopes, the forfeit of the grant and matters of that sort. A further set of mechanisms is the unallocated margin, the service distribution and the multipliers. When they are determined, we will be able to give hon. Members a more accurate forecast of the grant entitlement of each authority. I cannot do that now. I have to be frank with the House and say that, as in all previous years under this system, the increase in rateable value in certain areas results in the loss of grant to areas with high need, and there is nothing that the mechanism can do to arrest that. That is a problem with the system, and it is why the system has to be scrapped. We must wait to see the exemplifications before giving my hon. Friend a better answer.

Mr. Bob Cryer: That sneering and cynical statement will be met with apprehension in cities such as Bradford which are struggling to maintain services and to repair schools, many of which were built in Victorian times. The Tory Government are fond of Victorian values. Does the Secretary of State not understand that councils are trying to maintain services against a background of massive rate support grant cuts? He could do the nation a service by restoring some of those cuts and ensuring that councils can maintain the services which, by and large, help the poorest people in our community. If he wants the money, he can persuade the Cabinet to cancel the £10 million Trident programme.

Mr. Ridley: The return of the hon. Gentleman to this House was the true cause of apprehension in Bradford.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while we have the present formula for allocating grant, it is inevitable that high rateable value councils such as Oxfordshire will have grant taken away, which is why such counties will warmly welcome our proposals for reforming the rating system? Until that happy day, if counties such as Oxfordshire spend disproportionately above GRE, they will inevitably see rates go through the roof to the detriment of pensioners, jobs and others in the county.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend assessed the situation entirely correctly. There is no way that the switch of grant from high rateable value areas to high need areas can be arrested by any of the mechanisms, although it can be moderated. We will have to see what we can do about that later. Such situations are grossly exacerbated by high spending.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: At some time, probably during the recess, will the Secretary of State place in the Library his analysis of the connection between jobs and rates so that we can have this debate on the basis of common knowledge? Contrary to the very first question he was asked by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the penny-pinching that has taken place in towns such as Guildford has led to the town being strewn with litter all weekend. People wonder why, get annoyed and complain. There is a connection between false penny-pinching by local authorities and services.
Given that the word "people" does not appear in the Secretary of State's statement, I wish to ask him a question about the rising elderly population in the country. Are the local authorities that he claims are spending too much the same local authorities that are not training care assistants for old people's homes, or that are not able to inspect private sector old people's homes, with the tragic consequences that have ensued recently? Whatever the jargon involved in this kind of statement, it is about people. I ask the Secretary of State to address himself to these points, which have been raised by some of his hon. Friends and all of mine.

Mr. Ridley: Starting with Ciuildford— I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is no longer with us— one of the difficulties for councils in areas such as Guildford is that such a tremendous cut is made in the grant that they have very high rates for a very low spending performance, because so much money is transferring to constituencies in the Manchester and north-west area. So, for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to come and criticise what is happening in Guildford on top of that is a little disparaging, when he remembers the subsidy that is going to areas further north. Of course, that is the point: rates and jobs are intimately connected. That is why areas such as Guildford have tried so hard to keep their rates as low as they can, because they fully understand the relation between high rates and jobs — even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
Yes, the statement is about people, but the people are separated from the statement by their local authorities. I hope that the local authorities will remember that this statement is about people, and the people who pay the rates as well.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about my proposals for the 1988–89 rate support grant settlement for Wales.
Local authorities in Wales are beginning to plan their budgets for next year. In order to assist that process, I am today announcing the key elements of my proposals for the RSG settlement. I shall shortly be circulating, as is customary, more detailed information to Welsh councils, and I shall place copies of that material in the Library and in the Vote Office.
In framing my proposals for 1988–89, I have taken account of the demands on Welsh local authorities. Again, this year, Welsh councils have a settlement which provides a realistic base, enabling them to maintain and develop services while keeping spending within the Government's plans. While there is competition between services for resources, there is also tremendous scope for maximising the effective delivery of those services, through improved efficiency and greater awareness of the potential to achieve cost savings by adopting the best practices currently developed. Not enough is done to ensure the rapid and effective dissemination of improvements in efficiency, and I want to work in close co-operation with local government to increase the pace of progress in that area and to realise the savings that are waiting to be made.
I turn now to my proposals for the 1988–89 settlement. Provision for local authorities' relevant current expenditure in 1988–89 in the public expenditure White Paper published in January 1987 was £1,589 million. I now propose to set current expenditure provision at £1,640 million— £51 million, or 3·2 per cent., more than the White Paper figure, £82 million, or 5·3 per cent., more than authorities have budgeted to spend this year, and £113 million, or 7·4 per cent., more than provision in the 1987–88 settlement. This allows all authorities to hold their spending broadly level in real terms, and in addition provides an allowance for key county services. In the autumn I shall give details of the distribution of this sum between services.
Total relevant expenditure for RSG purposes is estimated to be £1,886 million, which is £105 million, or 5·9 per cent., more than authorities have budgeted to spend this year, and £122 million, or 6·9 per cent., above the assumption for total relevant expenditure in the 1987–88 settlement.
As for aggregate Exchequer grant in support of relevant expenditure, I propose that it should be £1,256 million, an increase of £82 million, or 7 per cent., on the level in the main report for 1987–88. The grant percentage will be maintained at 66·6 per cent., the same level as in the main report last year after allowing for grant provision for the teachers' pay increase. This generous increase in grant should lead to very low average rate rises next year.
The local authority associations have made it clear to me that they favour stability and certainty in grant entitlements. I therefore propose to leave the basic grant distribution mechanisms unaltered, although I shall review this proposal during the course of further consultations with them in the autumn. The slope of the grant-related poundage schedule and the 10 per cent. threshold will remain unchanged, and I propose to leave in place the


mechanisms used in the current year to limit grant gains and losses. This will enhance stability while exerting the necessary downward pressure on spending. For most councils, increases in spending will result in a loss of grant and this will not be recycled. Equally, reductions in expenditure will attract extra grant. Councils thus have an opportunity to plan ahead with certainty in the knowledge that their grant entitlement will be a direct result of their own spending decisions. I remind councils that there is also extra grant available in 1987–88 if they bring their spending closer to plans.
I have no doubt that my proposals for 1988–89 offer local authorities in the Principality a realistic base. They will be able to develop services whilst improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the services under their control. They know that if they work within the Government's expenditure plans their taxpayers will benefit from the extra resources that I have provided. I look forward to further discussions with the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance, not only about my proposals for the 1988–89 settlement, but about how best to further our joint objective of achieving the best possible services for Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: Stripped of its verbiage, we have just heard from the Secretary of State an admission of his failure. The only welcome we can give is for the fact that there has been no change in the mechanisms and for the fact that he has dropped the detailed schedule that caused so much confusion last year. Behind the symbols and the hieroglyphics of the rate support grant lie for Wales the sad realities of crucial, but crumbling, services, and essential, but inadequate, resources. The statement is really about houses and house repairs, or the need for them; about social services, home helps and services for the elderly, or the lack of them; and about books for schoolchildren and repairs for schools, or the absence of them. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the past eight years, in all those aspects Wales has fallen behind social need at a time when that need has been increasing, because of the extra 75,000 unemployed and the aging population?
The cost increase assumption in the statement is critical because, self-evidently, if the costs are not covered by the increases, cuts must be made or rates must be increased. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, therefore, that in his statement he assumes cost increases and a GDP deflator of 4 per cent.? Does he recognise that this is not only completely inadequate but completely unrealistic? Surely he is not unaware that costs for councils, because they are labour-intensive, rise far more rapidly than the cost of living index? They are essentially geared to the changes in salaries and wages.
The police have just had a 7·75 per cent. increase — an increase awarded by the Government — which councils will have to pay. Teachers have just had an increase—again an increase awarded by the Government — which councils will have to pay. The firemen have just had an increase. Those increases alone will need an extra £86 million of expenditure, and there are still the manual, administrative and clerical workers to come. None of those is likely to settle at the 4 per cent. implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the district councils estimate that they need to increase expenditure by 7 per cent. just to stand still, just to maintain the existing levels of provision and commitment? The county councils estimate that they need 10 per cent. just to stand still. Is the Secretary of State the only one in Wales who does not know what all Welsh people know, which is that merely sustaining the existing levels of service in Wales is not enough? In fact, this statement leaves a gap of 3 to 4 per cent., a £16 million under-provision of the levels needed just to sustain inadequate services at their present level.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although at first sight this settlement appears to be better than the English settlement—5·3 per cent. compared with 4 per cent. — that comparison is deceptive, because 37 of the English authorities, which account for about one third of the total spend in England, are rate-capped or otherwise subject to spending limitations'? If we take the English shires, such as the area represented by the Secretary of State, we find that the settlements are virtually the same in England and in Wales.
Has the Secretary of State looked at what has happened to local government finance in Wales since the Conservative party came to office? Is he aware that this Government have robbed Wales of £672 million of rate support grant—the extra amount that would have been received over the life of this Government if only the rate support grant had been kept at the 1979 level? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that represents a loss of £650 for every Welsh household, or a loss of £268 for every Welsh man, woman and child? A figure of £672 million is difficult to visualise, but, put in capital terms, it would provide 20,000 houses or 280 new schools.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, because rate support grant has fallen since 1979 under this Government from 75 to 67 per cent. of total spending, the Welsh councils have had to find from rates 33 per cent., instead of 25 per cent., of expenditure? Is it not hypocritical of the Government to throw up their hands in false surprise when councils inevitably have been forced to increase their rates? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise and accept that this poor settlement means more rate increases for Wales in the coming year, or is that perhaps what the Government want? Is this to soften up the public in preparation for the introduction of the poll tax?
The Secretary of State says that he has maintained the percentage of grant. [Interruption] His statement leaves more questions to be answered than it answered. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that to say that he has maintained the percentage of grant is meaningless, because the percentage on its own is meaningless? What really matters is what it is a percentage of. The same per cent. of too little still remains too little, and this grant is £60 million below what is needed just to stand still.
The Secretary of State talks of greater efficiency. Is he aware that the chairman of the Audit Commission cut by 75 per cent. his predecessor's estimate of the scope for efficiency savings in local government'? Is he aware that Wales has suffered eight years of neglect and disinterest and that this statement does nothing to reverse that deprivation and nothing to restore the £672 million stolen from the people of Wales? It will be a cause of alarm and despondency in Wales. It will mean rate increases far beyond anything that the Secretary of State is projecting. This is the right hon. Gentleman's first real decision for Wales. What Wales needed was a champion, a fighter, in


the Cabinet. Instead, we have a Secretary of State who is strong on charm but utterly, disastrously and pathetically weak on performance. Today he has failed the people of Wales, but it is the people of Wales who will pay for that failure.

Mr. Walker: That was a third-rate statement by the third choice shadow Secretary of State. No wonder it was greeted throughout in such dismal silence by the Opposition. To string along previous cuts in local government expenditure is wrong. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like me to go over the period when the Labour party was in power and to refer to his total silence as the Labour Government slashed education and health services and plunged into debt to the International Monetary' Fund. Perhaps the Labour party recognises that the shadow spokesman was a silent spokesman on these topics when the Labour Government were cutting services such as those that he now mentions as being so passionately dear to his heart.
The statement says that next year the Government grant will increase ahead of the estimated rate of inflation. The expenditure accepted for grant is equal to £1,800 per household in Wales, of which £1,200 will come from Government grant—an increase of 5·3 per cent. on the amount that local authorities have budgeted for this year. I should have thought that most people taking a sensible and objective approach would recognise that this is a sound and sensible settlement. The Opposition are not interested in improved efficiency in local government.
As for the suggestion that the Audit Commission considered that only a proportion of my predecessor's forecast savings could be achieved, the fact is that the Audit Commission and LAMSAC, the local authorities' own management advisory service, have come forward with dozens of proposals to improve efficiency in local government in Wales and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. Some local authorities in Wales have done some of these things — some have done much more than others —but the potential for improvement in efficiency is very considerable.
It would be irresponsible to say that one will increase grants without expecting improved efficiency. Therefore, I strongly defend a settlement in which we get a 66 per cent. grant compared with 46 per cent. in England, and a 5·3 per cent. increase on this year's budget, which is 1·5 per cent. more that has been obtained for England. It is a just, sensible and good settlement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal for brief questions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has secured an excellent settlement, which will be warmly welcomed by local authorities of all political colours, in contrast to the prolonged and unworthy whingeing that we have heard from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)? Is he further aware that local authorities in Wales are keenly looking forward to working closely with him on the basis of the approach that he has demonstrated in this statement and previously?

Mr. Walker: It is a sensible settlement, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about it. The settlement will be welcomed in the Principality. I very much look forward to working closely with local authorities throughout the Principality.

Mr. Richard Livsey: What allowance is made in the rate support grant for inflation? There seems to be some controversy about this. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that there was a GDP deflator of 4 per cent. If that is accurate, the rate support grant for Wales is underfunded. Indeed, Powys county council estimates that a 6 per cent. increase is required simply to stand still. Will the right hon. Gentleman put us right on that? Does he believe that the rate support grant settlement is adequate for education, social services and housing, all of which are in a state of crisis in Wales?

Mr. Walker: There will always be scope for increased expenditure in all those spheres, but in Wales we must also consider the importance of attracting jobs and businesses, and the level of rates. If they soar, as they have in parts of England, they will have a detrimental effect on the expansion of the economy.
When the Liberals were in partnership with the Labour Government, they, too, found that there were practical problems associated with enormous increases in expenditure, for which they usually ask. When they supported the Labour Government, they had to support cuts in most of these sectors. The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities calculate that it will cost an extra 6 per cent. to stand still, but they have agreed wage increases substantially above the rate of inflation. Whether that is done in the private or the public sector, one has to improve productivity and efficiency to help meet part of the extra wage cost. That applies as much to local government as to anyone else.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I am sure that the people of Wales will attach far greater credibility to the statement of a Secretary of State within the Cabinet than to a third choice outside the shadow Cabinet. At least we, unlike the Labour party, have a fighter where the power lies.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of this generous settlement and the drive for efficiency that he has called for will be not only low rate increases but a real improvement in local services, provided that local authorities concentrate on their statutory obligations? Will my right hon. Friend exert his influence on Clwyd county council to get it to divert resources from non-statutory spending to skill building and the maintenance of the school libraries' stock, in view of growing concern over the scandalous neglect of both?

Mr. Walker: I note what my hon. Friend said about his county council. He is right in saying that improving efficiency is an important factor. It is of benefit because it means that the amount of money available is used more sensibly and to greater purpose, and it stops unnecessary increases in the rates. I wish to discuss with the local authorities in Wales how we can introduce machinery whereby if one local authority finds a managerial process or makes a technological breakthrough which is important in improving efficiency it can quickly be transmitted to all the others and applied.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was hardly relevant to his tenure of the Welsh Office? The right hon. Gentleman attacked the high-spending


authorities but, whether we like it or not, in terms relevant to England, there are no high-spending authorities in Wales. He must accept that. Our problem in Wales concerns the effective delivery of services to meet needs. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever the Government transfer of funds to local authorities, he requires a mechanism that establishes needs? The rate support grant mechanism does not do that. We have a graduated expenditure calculation, but that does not necessarily reflect the reality of the social and economic needs of the areas or the services.
In his statement the right hon. Gentleman stressed the need for additional allowance for key county council services. Will he identify to the House and to Wales what he regards as the key local authority services in Wales? Do they include social service provision, through the personal social services, for the elderly, the provision of education services for the under-fives, or the provision of housing services by local authorities, which are substantially underfunded?

Mr. Walker: The most important service in the distribution, and the one involving the greatest expenditure is, of course, education. The increased costs will be involved in the recent settlements in education.
On the question of needs and services, of course all concerned with the distribution of money throughout the local government system will be anxious to identify quickly and sensibly the difference in needs and requirements. Politicians of different political parties and, indeed, within the same party, will always have different priorities in defining the needs that are the most urgent. The very fact that the Government are to provide 66 per cent. of total local government expenditure in the Principality, compared with 46 per cent. in England, illustrates that we have identified the differences in both the rateable value base and the needs in Wales, and therefore that we need the reallocation. I am anxious to discuss with the local authorities any improvements that we can make in identifying the needs.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I applaud my right hon. Friend for coming forward with a very generous settlement—7·4 per cent. more than last year. The ball is now in the local councils' court, and my constituents in Cardiff are very concerned about the rates that they have to pay, after last year's excessive rate increase of 24 per cent. Given that next year is again not a local council election year, we dread another savage rate increase. Will my right hon. Friend use all his efforts to ensure that local councils minimise the burden to the ratepayer, perhaps by publishing the savings that might be made by each council in Wales if they contracted out local services?

Mr. Walker: The new Local Government Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, contains important provisions on that issue. There is no doubt that in a whole range of activities—and this certainly applied to energy efficiency when I was in my previous post as Secretary of State for Energy — the difference in performance between one local authority and another is dramatic. Millions of pounds are wasted through the inefficiency of some local authorities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, people in Cardiff and elsewhere in Wales are

interested in keeping rates at a low and sensible level and that applies particularly to the business community, especially new businesses and enterprises.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Secretary of State accept that local authorities in Wales —particularly Cardiff, to which he has just referred— have had great success in attracting jobs and improving efficiency? Will he give us answers to some specific questions? In his statement he said that he would state in the autumn how moneys would be distributed among services. Does he not recognise that local authorities need to know that distribution now, so that they can work on their rating strategy? Does he not recognise, too, that the requirements are well in excess of the figures that he gave?
Let me offer the right hon. Gentleman some figures for Cardiff. In order to stand still, Cardiff requires 13 per cent., 8 per cent. of which is to allow for wage increases, on which the local authority has no choice because the settled increase for administrative staff is 6·75 per cent. and the settlement for manual workers is likely to be about 10 per cent. Will he accept that that is well in excess of the increase that he has offered the Welsh authorities, which is less than 6 per cent.?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are other costs that fall on local authorities and that he has made no allowance for the expenditure that will be necessary to prepare for the poll tax if he and his colleagues insist on proceeding with that foolish and expensive tax? Does he realise that no sum is provided to prepare for the change in housing benefit and that there are other expenditures, to which I shall refer on another occasion, for which he has failed to allow in opting for a settlement that is slightly in excess of general price inflation and bears no relationship to the needs of local authorities?

Mr. Walker: The settlement is 5·3 per cent. above the local authorities' budgets for last year. When local authorities mention the sums that they will need to spend if they are to stand still, as it were, they tend not to include a large element to reflect improved efficiency.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that manual and administrative workers have received pay increases that have been way above the rate of inflation. If local authority associations negotiate with manual workers and give them an increase that is double the rate of inflation, I hope that their intention is to absorb a substantial part by means of improved efficiency. Local authorities cannot continue saying "We shall agree to a pay increase that is double the rate of inflation," without looking for improved efficiency and performance. That is important.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this extraordinarily generous settlement for Wales will be greeted with acclamation and that the points made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in his well-prepared carp, which he obviously had ready before hearing the details of the settlement, will not be accepted? When we press for greater efficiency, can we ensure that local authorities in Wales do everything that they can to put services out to tender and to privatise wherever possible? That will mean that there will be scope for rate reductions this year.

Mr. Walker: My long experience enables me to assure my hon. Friend that no Government and no Minister will


ever receive acclamation for a rate support grant. It will always be suggested that the settlement is wrong, that it should be more generous and that certain parts of it are ill-founded. However, I believe that this is a fair and reasonable settlement. It is important for local authorities throughout the Principality to look to the authorities that have succeeded in improving their efficiency and to consider why they have been able to do so, and where possible copy their example.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned his previous office, which was that of Secretary of State for Energy. Why should we be expected to swallow his strictures when he talks about cost-efficiency and controlling prices, when he has recently been rapped over the knuckles for spending £23 million of taxpayers' money unnecessarily on persuading people to tell Sid, during his tenure as Secretary of State for Energy?
It is difficult for Welsh local authorities to take the right hon. Gentleman seriously in the light of his record. How can we be expected to take seriously his statements in the Welsh Grand Committee when he says that the sorts of problems that face the inner cities are those faced by the Welsh valleys and that the ways of dealing with inner-city problems should be applied also to the Welsh valleys? At the same time he is expecting local authorities in the valleys, which face high unemployment, bad housing and pressures on social services and the Health Service, to accept the rate support grant that he has announced. Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect us to take him seriously?

Mr. Walker: I was not the subject of any great strictures about telling Sid. I suggest that the hon. Lady reads fully the relevant report, in which it suggested that there is the possibility of a division of view. I am delighted to say that throughout the country 5 million people took advantage of being able to become participants in an important industry. I have no regret whatsoever about the manner in which that was done.
There are problems in the valleys and resources are needed if they are to be tackled. The resources that will be made available in allocations and increases in expenditure and on the budgets of last year are above the rate of inflation. We shall do better than England, because there are parts of the Principality with problems that are worse than those to be found in England.

Mr. Paul Flynn: We have heard a statement that will be received with great resentment by Welsh local authorities. The Secretary of State has already confessed his lack of interest in and understanding of RSG, and nothing illustrated that more than his delivery of the statement and his answer to questions. Practically no illustrations have been drawn from Welsh local authorities and it seems that the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from the caricature of local authorities that has been presented by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman shows no understanding of the splendid work of many local authorities, including Newport borough council, which for many years has provided key services of great value. Will you look to your own Department, which was condemned only last week by the Public Accounts Committee for showing no serious concern for mismanagement, collapse of control and the financial anarchy of a body over which you have sponsorship and control?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) had better learn that I am "you".

Mr. Flynn: I ask the Secretary of State to consider the position of local authorities in Wales and to understand that the missing word in his statement is "cuts". The grant percentage is 66·6 per cent. Does he agree that the percentage for every previous year has been above that? It was 66·7 per cent., and in 1980–81 it was 73·4 per cent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has put on display his ignorance of the rate support grant mechanism. If he reads my statement carefully he will find that the percentage grant is identical to that which applied last year. The reason for that is the change that has taken place in the provision for teachers' salaries. The reality is that the settlement is sensible and generous. I have met local authority representatives today to discuss these matters with them, and I am glad to say that their approach is far more constructive, objective and sensible than that displayed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roy Hughes: We are told that our local authorities are beginning to plan their budgets for next year, and I note that the Secretary of State wishes to assist in the process. Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his offer can be interpreted as a threat, bearing in mind that the Government have taken £672 million from our local authorities in Wales since 1979? When will the Government provide the revenue that local authorities in Wales need so that they can provide the level of social services that are needed by the people? There is an aging population, and there was a transfer recently of certain responsibilities from the Department of Health and Social Security to local government.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that Wales has a greater proportion of older houses than any other area of the United Kingdom? When will the Government unleash the purse strings, bearing in mind especially the receipts from the sale of council houses, and enable local authorities to tackle this important social issue? Is there any need for me to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the mass unemployment with which Wales is afflicted, which is not disguised by restart programmes or by fiddling with the figures? According to the Government's recent submission to the EEC, the activity rate of Wales is lower than that of any other part of the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that our local authorities could play a major part in rectifying that problem?
In reality, our local authorities need a 10 per cent. increase on the previous settlement if they are merely to continue with their existing policies. The bulk of such an increase would be taken up by the justifiable teachers' settlement, and, as my right hon. Friend the member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, there are other major settlements in the pipeline, including those of the police, the firemen and local authority manual grades.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has a major task to justify his appointment and to provide our local authorities with the wherewithal that they need? Instead, it seems that they can look forward only to a poll tax and the decimation of education and other vital services.

Mr. Walker: In the coming year, local authorities can look forward to an allocation of £105 million more than


they budgeted to spend this year. A great tale of woe and misery comes from the Opposition. Such a constant, mournful tone does a lot of damage to the atmosphere of the Principality. It is time that the Opposition cheered up. I agree that housing is a serious problem. That is why I am pleased that my predecessor managed to do much more about home improvement than the previous Labour Government did.

Rate Support Grant (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement about local authority expenditure and rate support grant in Scotland for 1988–89.
I propose to set the level of provision for local authority relevant current expenditure in Scotland at £3,640 million. This figure allows authorities to maintain their spending broadly level in real terms, and it includes provision for costs that local authorities will incur in preparing for the introduction of the community charge. The figure represents an increase of 9 per cent. over provision in the current year, and £170 million over the provision for 1988–89 in the public expenditure White Paper.
Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £2,372 million. This will maintain, at present estimates of loan charges and other financing items, the grant percentage which is being paid this year — 55·5 per cent. — and will provide an additional £180 million over the current year's figure.
This is a realistic and a fair settlement. In reaching it I have taken careful account of the views that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed to my hon. Friend when they met him on 3 July. For the second year running, the settlement is based on local authorities' own budgets and the grant percentage is being maintained. If authorities adjust their spending to guideline this year and budget at guideline next year, average rate increases will not exceed the rate of inflation. I hope that local authorities will respond positively to this settlement.

Mr. Donald Dewar: There is some limited evidence in the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is learning some hard lessons at this time, and that is perhaps something of a tribute to the electorate of Scotland. Is it not extraordinary that, only a week ago, Ministers were forcing through a measure to cut £202 million from local authority budgets in the general clawback, and that that figure is now incorporated in the calculations for 1988–89? It is an "Alice in Wonderland" situation and reflect no credit on the Scottish Office's consistency of approach. Will the Secretary of State accept that the logic is that the penalty for this year should now be cancelled?
The relevant expenditure to which he referred includes provision for additional responsibilities of one sort or another, which I understand are being shouldered by local government for the first time. Will he confirm that it includes, for example, £34 million that will totally take care of the final instalment of the teachers' pay settlement? Does the figure that he announced allow for a full settlement of the firemen's and police pay claim, or at least a calculation of it? How much has been put in for that? Has he added a figure for the considerable cost of implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was skilfully piloted to the statute hook last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)? Will that sum have to be found at the expense of established expenditure if local authorities are to do what they should and what they want to do to help the disabled?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the cost of preparing for the introduction of the poll tax. He said that it was specifically taken into account in the


relevant expenditure figure. He will recall, of course, that the memorandum to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 mentions a figure of £9 million for compiling the register. That has been seen as clearly inadequate and condemned by everyone—not only by councillors but by impartial officials — as simply not measuring up to the cost of the chaos and complications that the introduction of the poll tax will involve. As he has said that a specific figure has been included, will the Secretary of State say what it is and just how much he therefore thinks the completion of the register will cost in 1988–89?
Will he accept that the distribution of the grant, the relevant expenditure and aggregate grant amount are vital? As he knows, this year, authorities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Strathclyde and Lothian were given guidelines that meant expenditure at or below the previous year's budgets in real terms. I should like an assurance that, in 1988–89, there will be sufficient room for the figure that he announced and that it is his intention that no authority will get a guideline that, in real terms, is below this year's budget.
Will the Minister accept that there is little cause for satisfaction in the announcement? Discounting the special factors, as I understand it, the calculation for inflation is 4 per cent. Does he accept that that will be inadequate when measured against what will almost certainly happen in the 1988–89 pay round and the general rise in local government costs? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if the grant percentage had been held at 68·5, as it was in 1980–81, and applied to the relevant expenditure figure that he announced for 1988–89, it would have yielded another £550 million? Is it not a simple fact that the Government have a very long way to go if they are to undo the terrible damage that they have done to jobs, services and the fabric of local democracy in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: It is probably fair to say that the hon. Gentleman's comments represented a welcome for my statement. I appreciate that he had somewhat to qualify them for the purposes of the occasion, but nevertheless that is the reality behind his contribution. I noted that, last year, when I announced a generous settlement for local authorities. the hon. Gentleman informed me that it was because of the imminence of an election. Today, when I announced a generous settlement for local authorities, he informed me that it was the result of an election. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will conclude, whether circumstances are of one kind or the other, that the Government have been extremely fair to local authorities. I hope that local authorities will respond in a similar way.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the penalty that was announced some time ago will be cancelled. No, it will not be cancelled. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if local authorities reduce their expenditure, that sum will he returned to them for the benefit of themselves and their ratepayers.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the £34 million represented the full requirement for the teachers' pay settlement. I confirm that it does. I am also happy to confirm that pay increases for police and firemen have been allowed for in the figures.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act

1986. That is a matter for local authorities to decide on the basis of what they perceive to be their priorities within what we all agree is a generous provision. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the community charge provision. In the provision figures, we have assumed costs of £12 million. That figure comprises £9 million for the preparation costs of the community charge register and £3 million to cover the additional work load in housing benefit administration.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about guidelines. They will be considered over the next few weeks. I anticipate that local authorities will be informed of the level of individual guidelines in late September or early October.
The hon. Gentleman concluded his questions with the ritual denunciation that is required on such occasions. On this occasion, he does not feel strongly about the matter. The provision that I announced for local authorities is £3,640 million. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the Council of Scottish Local Authorities budget projection for the year in question is only £3,679 million, and that is a difference of £39 million. On that basis, when we take into account the fact that its estimates for inflation are substantially greater than the actual expected rate of inflation, at the very least one will be entitled to assume that, if local authorities spend even on the basis that they are projecting, overspend next year should be infinitely smaller than that with which we are faced this year. Indeed, the figures that local authorities are announcing will be held against local authorities if in the event, despite such a generous settlement, we find degrees of overspending of the kind that we have seen in recent years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal for brevity. Will hon. Members ask questions instead of making debating points'? There are five Northern Ireland orders after this statement and time is getting on.

Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the settlement. Perhaps even COSLA will begin to realise that the Government's economic policies are working to the benefit of local government. May I press him further on the guidelines? Will he do all that he can to bring local authorities whose guidelines are below assessed needs up to that level, and when he is working on the formula, will he keep in mind the importance of rural areas?

Mr. Rifkind: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is our aim to bring all authorities' guidelines up to assessed need, and I hope to make significantly more progress on that in the forthcoming year. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, this year, 11 more authorities had their guidelines brought up to assessed needs and all authorities with guidelines below assessed needs were still able to increase their spending in real terms. I take my hon. Friend's suggestion very much to heart.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State said that he had taken careful account of the views of COSLA in reaching his decision on a settlement. In what respect did those views adjust his position'? He said that the statement was based on local authorities' own budgets. Is it not true that they were based on his imposed guidelines? Is he really trying to tell us that the settlement offers any opportunity for an improvement in local government services?

Mr. Rifkind: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is based on local authorities' own budgets. I said explicitly, and I am happy to repeat — the hon. Gentleman clearly missed that part of my statement—that the figure for grant is based on local authorities' budgets, after the selective action in respect of the two authorities which the House considered on Monday night, plus 4 per cent. to take account of inflation, plus the other components to which I referred. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate and thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement and the provision that he has made. After what we went through on Monday evening, I hope that he will be anxious not only to punish the wicked but to reward the good — among them Perth and Kinross district council, which is prudent—when he pronounces his sentence. Is it not an amazing phenomenon, which it must be difficult for the Opposition to swallow, that even the extravagance of Socialist COSLA cannot be beaten by the success of Tory economics?

Mr. Rifkind: I am unable to improve on my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. In determining such matters, we try to give positive and genuine support to prudent local authorities.

Mr Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give us some insight into the influence which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), had on the settlement? Did his persuasive skills manage to salve his conscience in relation to his strictures about the profligacy of local authorities?
More seriously, will the Secretary of State give me some advice on how I can go to places such as Valley Field and Oakley in my constituency, which have suffered from mine closures, and tell the people there that the Scottish Office feels justified in allocating £12 million for the poll tax but in excluding that area from urban aid? They have been hit severely by mine closures. Although we recognised the need to revive city centres, those areas in west Fife must also be revived, and we have had discussions with the Scottish Development Agency to that effect. How can I persuade the local authorities in those areas to pay attention to central Government when that Government are spending £12 million unnecessarily?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not familiar with the details of the hon. Gentleman's point about urban aid. The Government have made an extremely generous provision of urban aid, although we are not always able to meet every request that is made. But I hope that every request, especially those from areas of high unemployment, is considered sympathetically, within our overall capability. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the local communities which he represents will benefit from such a realistic and fair rate support grant settlement.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for this very generous settlement. Does it take into account the specific needs of areas such as Perth and Kinross, where Breadalbane is listed as an environmentally sensitive area? Will he confirm that no allowance is made for the dumping of nuclear waste on Schiehallion, which was one of the fairy tales put out by the Scottish National party during the election? Has he noticed the absence of the Scottish National party member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for questions, not debating points.

Mr. Walker: It is a very important question, because the hon. Gentleman was making some comments about a road in my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is about the rate support grant.

Mr. Rifkind: The needs of my hon. Friend's constituency will be considered in the context of the guidelines when they are announced. Financial support is given to environmentally sensitive areas, such as Breadalbane, but not through the rate support grant.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the light of his announcement on Tuesday about the Inverclyde initiative, will the Secretary of State show much more sympathy to Inverclyde district council in its hour of desperate need? I remind him that unemployment on the lower Clyde is still scandalously high and that 1,200 employees at Scott Lithgow are still being forced to suffer because of the Government's bad faith in relation to the three Ministry of Defence orders which were promised 17 months ago. That promise has still not been honoured by the Government, who are quite without principle or humility.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman was as fair and objective as he usually is, he would at least have prefaced his remarks by welcoming the substantial support for Inverclyde which I announced earlier this week and in respect of the land that is being released by Scott Lithgow to ensure industrial development and improvement of the infrastructure in that area. I am well aware of the needs of Inverclyde. The hon, Gentleman might ensure a sympathetic response if, when constructive contributions are made to his constituency, he at least had the fairness to acknowledge it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in view of the overriding need to maintain rigorous control of public expenditure in Scotland, this is by any standards a very generous settlement? Will he confirm that what he said about prudent authorities will apply to authorities in urban as well as rural areas? Does he agree that, after this generous settlement, it is high time that the Labour group on Strathclyde regional council announced an end to its policy of keeping police numbers below authorised establishment?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. If there is concern—as there understandably is — to ensure the maximum effort to deal with the problems of crime and dishonesty in Strathclyde, it is a matter of great regret that the region remains one of the few authorities, if not the only authority, in Scotland that is not making provision to enable the full utilisation of the resources available for its police service.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities can be prosecuted for failing to provide services for the disabled? Is he aware of the cost of implementing in Scotland the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1987?

Mr. Rifkind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that local authorities will be able to carry out their


statutory responsilities under that Act when they remember that the provision announced today is £3,640 million. It should not be difficult for local authorities to carry out their minimum statutory requirements with such a provision.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May I focus the Secretary of State's attention on need and on the agreed requirement for local authority services? Will he assure the House that the proposed settlement for next year will avoid the present ludicrous and disgraceful position where five local authorities are being penalised by grant penalty despite the fact that their budgeted expenditure is less than the agreed need assessment formula of his Department?

Mr Rifkind: I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance because he knows perfectly well that, not only do we have the objective of ensuring that those authorities with guidelines below assessed need have their guidelines increased. but that, even in the current year and the previous year, those authorities were allowed guidelines that enabled substantial increases in expenditure in real terms before any penalty was approved. I believe that that is the basis upon which these matters should be considered.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State will be aware that the announced settlement is a global sum and whether it is a fair settlement will depend very much upon the distribution of that settlement. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in terms of material received from his Department, Strathclyde was ranked first in terms of areas of deprivation and Borders was ranked ninth—the last in the list? Therefore, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the fact that, in 1987, the assessed expenditure need of Borders was £582 per head and for Strathclyde £556 per head? That represents a difference of £26 per head, or about £51 million, which is the amount by which Strathclyde will be over guideline. Will the Secretary of State rectify that unjustifiable imbalance?

Mr. Rifkind: Whether this is or is not a fair settlement does not depend on distribution. It is a fair settlement because of the sums involved and the local authorities' own predictions of what their requirements will be. Distribution is a separate matter and, as the hon. Gentleman knows—

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Mr. Rifking: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had long, detailed experience within COSLA and he knows perfectly well that the distribution formula is not only discussed with the convention, but that the present distribution formula is one agreed by the convention. While the hon. Gentleman may represent an individual authority that has a difference of view on this matter, he knows perfectly well that the convention as a whole discussed those matters and there are no outstanding, significant differences between the Scottish Office and the convention with regard to the formula used for distribution. Therefore, if Strathclyde region has a difference of view on this matter, it is up to that region to persuade its colleagues on the convention who can then make representations to the Scottish Office.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State explain why he will not restore the rate support grant settlement to the level of 1978–80 or 1981–82

in proportion to the amount levied on local rates? That would allow local councils to reduce rates this year by up to 15p in the pound.

Mr. Rifkind: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that, in the four years when the grant percentage was, far example, 68·5 per cent., the rates imposed on ratepayers in Scotland went up by 60 per cent. Therefore, the suggestion that ratepayers benefit from a high grant percentage would be true only if some local authorities did not abuse the situation to increase their expenditure and still impose heavy rates increases on the local people.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In the light of what the Secretary of State has just said about the convention being consulted and discussions taking place, does he not agree that he is being a bit disingenuous? The reality of those discussions is that COSLA representatives get told what the formula will be and they do not engage in a process of negotiation. Does the Secretary of State's statement mean that there will be real negotiations with the Scottish local authorities?

Mr. Rifkind: The settlement that I have announced today has already been referred to by a number of the hon. Member's hon. Friends as an extremely reasonable and fair settlement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] That is the only inference that I can draw. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked me whether my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would be pleased with such a generous settlement. How are we to interpret that question except on the basis that I have suggested?

Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Secretary of State consider making an earlier announcement as to the guideline for each region or district? Does he not accept that the important thing for each local authority is to know exactly what its guideline will be? Will he not allow time so that the authorities can make representations to him? Will he also consider publishing a definition, in clear and unambiguous terms, of what he considers to be excessive and unreasonable as regards local authority expenditure, given the fact that the Minister said in the early hours of Tuesday morning:
there is no precise basis on which excessive and unreasonable expenditure is automatically triggered."—[Official Report, 20 July 1987; Vol. 120 c. 159.]

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, we have had discussions on that matter and evidence was given to the Select Committee some time ago as to the basis on which those matters were approached.
I agree that the guidelines should be given as early as possible in the financial year. I have said that we would hope to be able to give them in late September. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot consider individual guidelines until we know overall provision because, clearly, the two are directly and inevitably related. The provision is now known and we can now start working on the details of individual guidelines.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: With regard to distribution, will the Secretary of State take account of the money that Central region spent on providing assistance to the National Coal Board for the development of Polmaise colliery? The Government's energy policy resulted in the closure of that colliery last week. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Central region will not be


out of pocket as a result of the money that it spent to encourage the NCB with that project, which has now sadly ended?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that individual local authorities take responsibility for any specific use of their resources on matters that they believe to be important to their local communities. Our control is exercised with regard to the totality of that expenditure, not with regard to individual projects.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in areas such as Cunningham with a 30 per cent. male unemployment rate, many people will be astonished by the selective profligacy of the Government because they are prepared to spend £12 million on the preparation of a poll tax register? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the idiotic enterprise in which he is engaged will be accounted for separately? If the cost of preparing that register turns out, as many suspect, to be more than £12 million, will local authorities be appropriately reimbursed?

Mr. Rifkind: The Department has made the best estimate of what the cost will be and we have suggested provision of the kind that I have mentioned today. In the context of the overall provision that I have announced today, I do not believe that anyone could seriously suggest that the sums involved are other than extremely modest and relevant to what is required in that respect.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree on the importance of rural schools not just for primary education, but as a community resource in constituencies such as mine, North Tayside, Dumfries and others? Will this settlement enable Strathclyde regional council to keep open all the existing rural primary schools?

Mr. Rifkind: It is a matter for Strathclyde region to determine whether it wishes to do that. If it does and if that is the priority of the authority, there should be no difficulty given the vast sums allocated to Strathclyde region.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the percentage grant for Scotland is 55·5 per cent. compared with the grant of 46·2 per cent. for England and Wales? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the increase in rate support grant for Scotland is 9 per cent. whereas in England it is only 7 per cent. and that that increase will involve an added £36 being spent on every person in Scotland by the Treasury? If that is correct, will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Scotland is in an extremely privileged position in relation to the rate support grant and that that grant involves a massive transfer of resources from England and Wales to Scotland to improve employment in that region?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The grant percentage in Wales is 66 per cent., certainly higher than in Scotland, but in a sense that does not tell us very much. The grant percentage for any territory — Scotland, England or Wales — is only an average figure. Within Scotland, Wales and England there are extremely wide ranges of grant percentage. In some parts of England the grant percentage is lower than in Scotland and in some parts of Scotland it is lower than in England. Throughout the United Kingdom the grant percentage of any individual local authority depends upon the resources it can raise through the rate poundage applied in that part of the country. If certain parts of Scotland, England and Wales are less able to raise high resources from within the local community, inevitably that increase will be averaged in that locality. That is the position, and it should be borne in mind.

Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. John McFall: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been rising. [Interruption.] I did not see the hon. Gentleman rising. If he has been rising regularly, that is my mistake, and I shall call him.

Health Care (Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale)

Mr. Peter Pike: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
the decisions taken by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority last night resulting in hospital closures and reduced patient care.
It is important because it affects the Health Service provision for a population of 250,000. It is urgent because this is the last opportunity for three months to debate last night's decisions, after which time it will be too late to influence those decisions.
These decisions have become increasingly inevitable and I have taken every opportunity to raise these serious matters prior to decisions being taken. A delegation from the health authority recently met the regional health authority and returned empty handed with a clear instruction to implement a budget reducing expenditure this financial year by £1·3 million. Ministers and officials have dodged the revenue budget problem by constantly referring to the capital budget and to developments that have taken place.
Last night's decisions are unacceptable. They are based on assumptions that will not be fulfilled, and we shall still be faced with major problems unless the Government make more resources available. Consultation has not taken place about closing Victoria hospital. That hospital celebrated its centenary in 1986 and a new wing was opened providing new facilities at a cost of over £90,000, the money being raised by public subscription. Those facilities have not all been completed, and those that are complete have hardly been used because, suddenly, possible closure was suggested.
Last night's meeting agreed temporary closure of Victoria hospital and rationalisation of Rossendale surgical services in order to save £120,000. However, we know that temporary closure is effectively permanent closure and that the hospital will not be re-opened. The statutory consultation now to be held will be a token and a farce. In those wards already closed, equipment has been labelled for removal for some time. When it goes, and it will go. the cost of re-equipping those wards on top of the present financial crisis will make re-opening impossible.
When the hospital closes, some aspects of patient care cannot be provided at the other local hospitals remaning open. The general hospital cannot accept the transfer of

all the X-ray facilities. It already has major problems and the ultrasound equipment is virtually in a corridor in the X-ray department. Much money was recently spent at Victoria hospital on updating the heating system and providing a central cook-freeze kitchen that supplies other hospitals in the group.
Hartley hospital is to close completely and the land is to be disposed of for a theoretical income of £150,000. The package goes on and on. It worsens Health Service provision and patient care in the area, and the health authority knows it. The last annual report of the district medical officer showed major health problems in the area and proved the need for more resources not fewer. The proposals are drastic and unacceptable. They will fail in their objectives and more cuts will follow. The matter is serious and urgent and must be debated in the House today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decisons taken by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority last night resulting in hospital closures and reduced patient care.
I fully understand the concern with which the hon. Gentleman has moved his application. He knows that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today. I regret that I do not consider that it is appropriate under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT GUARANTEE AGENCY

Mr. Secretary Howe, supported by Mr. Chris Patten and Mr. Peter Lilley, presented (Under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Gua7antee Agency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to he printed. [Bill 15.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1165) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. — [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Northern Ireland (Fluoridation)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
That the draft Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The purpose of this order is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the provisions of the Water Fluoridation Act 1985. In Northern Ireland the Department of the Environment is the sole water authority, but this order, like the Great Britain Act, leaves the question of fluoridation as a local issue to be decided at local level, in our case through health and social services boards.
Dental decay in Northern Ireland remains, even after a welcome reduction, a significant and costly form of disease. The child dental health survey, carried out in 1983, showed that among 13-year-olds 64 per cent. of children in the Province had active decay in permanent teeth. This compares with 31 per cent. in England, 40 per cent. in Wales and 51 per cent. in Scotland. These are dreadful statistics.
Some people in Northern Ireland have taken a far-sighted and determined stand on fluoridation. There are two fluoridation schemes currently in operation, one at Tandragee and the other at Holywood. These schemes were introduced by their respective district councils prior to local government reorganisation in 1973. I pay tribute to their farsightedness. The House will want to know that the two areas which have the lowest incidence of tooth decay are, indeed, North Down and Tandragee.
There is overwhelming evidence that the presence of floride in drinking water avoids a great mass of dental caries in young persons. It is also overwhelmingly and crushingly demonstrated that the presence of fluoride in water has no morbid consequences whatsoever. I can find no moral or libertarian reason why the advantages to be obtained from a water supply with one part per million element of fluoride should not be made available to the people of this counry at the discretion of the local health authorities.
I am sorry that the former right hon. Member for South Down is not here today to hear the succinctness of his views quoted back at him. I hope that his successor will agree with Mr. Powell's views, as I hope will his other Ulster colleagues. It would be the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland that would be required to fund any scheme that came into operation following the recommendation of a health board. The

board would have to have consulted the DHSS on the cost-effectiveness of its proposal and the availability of funding before formally submitting proposals to the Department of the Environment.
The board will also have to publish details of its proposals at least three months before implementation, and it will have to give notice to and consult any district council affected, and will have to take into account any representations from the public.
The arguments for and against fluoridation have been advanced at some length on the Floor of the House and the House would not thank me if I were to rehearse them again. In Northern Ireland there are some forms of decay which are extremely difficult to handle, but tooth decay is one that we can and must do something about.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister ought not to be sensitive about repeating the arguments. The problem for us all is that even if he were successful in convincing the House or if any of us were successful in convincing the House that there was some serious error in the order, there is nothing on God's earth that the Minister, the Government or anyone else could do about it. That is why it is a charade.

Mr. Needham: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's views on that matter. We have such discussions in the House and in Committee upstairs. As I said last week, I hope that the talks currently taking place can lead, via the usual channels, to some way of redressing that problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.
We are making strides towards reducing dental decay, but we are not doing it fast enough or broadly enough. I am convinced that fluoridation of public water supplies at the level proposed in the order would significantly reduce the unacceptably high incidence of tooth decay in the Province.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1987.
2. Finance (No. 2) Act 1987.
3. British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act 1987.
4. Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
5. Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 1987.
6. Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys Act 1987.
7. Essex Act 1987.

Northern Ireland (Fluoridation)

Question again proposed.

Mr. James Marshall: The Opposition welcome the draft order. We accept the Minister's arguments that the order brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with the law in Great Britain and removes any legal doubt about adding fluoride to water supplies in the Province. Having said that, we have great sympathy with the point put forward by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that there is no right of amendment to the draft order available to hon. Members. However, we arrive at a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman. It is our view that the right forum for those kinds of decisions, debates and amendments should be in a devolved Assembly in the Province. If the Government, supported by the right hon. Gentleman, are prepared to work towards those ends, they would be warmly acclaimed and supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. David Alton: Before we arrive at the objective that the hon. Gentleman and I both share of a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for orders of this kind to be considered in the Northern Ireland Committee that is provided for under Standing Order No. 99 of our Standing Orders rather than being debated here on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that when that Standing Committee was operating I was not a Member of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminds me that one of the reasons that the Standing Committee failed to work successfully was the absence from the House of certain hon. and right hon. Gentleman. If the Government are prepared to revive the Standing Committee and those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to attend, and attend regularly, some advance could be made along the lines that were used before. Our ideal solution would be a devolved Assembly in the Province to deal with legislation of this kind.
To come to the point of the order, fluoridation is a recognised method of public health care for preventing tooth decay. In some quarters it is still recognised as controversial, but all the medical evidence available seems to show that it does not have any deleterious effect upon people's health and, as a method of preventing tooth decay, should be accepted and welcomed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office compared the incidence of tooth decay in the Province and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that there is no need for me to remind him that he does not have to make just that comparison. If he compared the cities of Belfast and Dublin in the island of Ireland he would find that the level of tooth decay in Dublin is far lower than it is in Belfast. The Minister, and I am sure hon. Members, will know that, whereas there is no fluoridation in the water supply in Belfast, there has been in Dublin for a number of years, and that has led to a significant reduction in tooth decay, particularly among children.
In the Minister's press release of 1 December 1986 he said that there is more tooth decay among children in the

Province than in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is correct. Fluoridation would help to redress that balance. Fluoridation may begin to redress that imbalance, but it should not hide from the Minister, the Government or the House the fact that much of that tooth decay is a reflection of the high levels of unemployment and the consequential poverty in Northern Ireland. Fluoridation of water supplies should not take the limelight from the need to continue to bring economic benefits and other social benefits to the Province.
The Opposition accept the order and, if it is implemented after the full and proper consultation processes that are laid down in the draft order are met, it will have our full support.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The word "charade" has already been used in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). I support the accusation that he made. Once again there is clear evidence of scandalous discrimination against Ulster and the Ulster people, because today the Government have put forward a number of Orders in Council that are not capable of amendment. This procedure offends the basic rights of people in Northern Ireland. The only choice given to Ulster Members is to vote either for or against the order.
I shall exercise my parliamentary right of voting against the order as the only means of protesting against an unacceptable and undemocratic system. My Unionist colleagues will join me in the No Lobby for the Division, but despite our opposition the Government will have a comfortable majority and will push the order through the House. No doubt some hon. Members are waiting with palpitations for a Division at 7 o'clock.
Many of those hon. Members who will support the Government have probably not been to Northern Ireland. I am sure that, if they were treated as second-class citizens in the way that Ulster Members of Parliament are treated and were not able to move amendments to various orders, they would be as angry as I am at the denial of fundamental rights to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Member also place on record his concern over the fact that many of those hon. Members who will vote in favour of the order are not even present and will not hear the debate?

Mr. Kilfedder: That is correct. No doubt they will converge on the House. If they are not now on their knees praying for a 7 o'clock Division, they are elsewhere, hoping to get in the right spirit.
During business questions this afternoon the Leader of the House told hon. and right hon. Members that talks were taking place with interested parties to discuss the intolerable way in which Orders in Council are put before the House. When reference was made to "interested parties", to quote his words, one would assume that he would include Unionist Members of Parliament, but I was not invited to discuss the matter raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I am shocked to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley that even he was excluded from such talks, and also that he received a letter advising him that he would not be invited to any such talks.
That is further corroboration of the undemocratic and contemptuous way in which the Government are treating the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. I find that repugnant. It reveals an arrogance that is certainly unacceptable to my hon. and right hon. Friends, to the Ulster people and to me. This order is not a surprising manifestation of the Government's attitude. Only last week the Minister reprimanded me in a television interview for my impertinence in criticising him and his Department for the proposals that would further undermine hospital services in the North Down area. I fear that the Northern Ireland officers and Ministers are so isolated in their cantonment from the Ulster people that they have come to believe that they are the modern version of colonial rulers and they live in a different world. They are not part of Northern Ireland. They do not experience what Ulster people experience. I have to warn them that they are in for a pretty hard time of it.
I shall not go into the merits of the order. These matters have been discussed at length elsewhere. I do not intend to add to this charade by taking part in the debate on fluoridation. However, I shall vote against the order and I intend to vote against every order presented to the House this evening.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I welcome the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) back to the House and to his new post as Opposition spokesman. I take the liberty of reminding him that, even if we had a devolved Government and Assembly at Stormont, that body would not be given all of what used to be called transferred matters. The Anglo-Irish Agreement uses the term that it "might" have devolved to it certain matters, which is a different affair. In any event, even if the transferred matters were restored to a revamped Stormont, a vast amount of legislation affecting Northern Ireland would still be dealt with here. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, being as fair and generous as he always has been, would not suggest that we should perpetuate the situation whereby Northern Ireland would continue for all time to be legislated for by Orders in Council — a procedure which would not be acceptable to, or even be contemplated for, any other part of the United Kingdom.
My contribution will be brief because I have outgrown any liking that I ever had for charades, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, this is a charade. Here we have no fewer than five Orders in Council crammed into the penultimate day before the recess. This is an insulting timetable, but it is only partly the fault of the business managers. To a far greater extent it reflects the incompetence of the Northern Ireland Office, which had these draft orders on the stocks, in the pipeline or on the shelf for some considerable time. It knew that approval was required for these orders before the recess. However, here they are, waiting to be brought in on the penultimate day.
In theory, we could devote seven and a half hours, not to considering, but merely to talking about, five unamendable Orders in Council. It is the intention of Ministers to give the impression, as we wade through these five orders, that we are debating and improving legislation for Northern Ireland. We are not debating in the meaning of the term as it is understood by the House. We are not

improving, because improvement is utterly impossible, and the Minister was truthful and honest enough to admit that in an earlier exchange.
No influence can be brought to bear on the legislation or, more important, on those who will implement the legislation. When these five orders were set down for today, the theory being whispered around corridors was, "Bad luck. It will be on the penultimate day before the recess, but it will be in prime time." Here we are, at half past six, starting on the marathon of the five orders.
I have never believed that it was the Government's intention to allow us prime time. I have been round this course far too many times. It was obvious to me a week ago that three or four statements would be made before our debates. Some of my rather more trusting hon. Friends queried my judgment, but I warned them that the Government would find ways and means to sabotage this so-called allocation of time. I said that three or four statements would be squeezed in unannounced, and we were landed with statements taking over two hours of our time.
All has not been lost, because, quite unintentionally, that injection of the three statements has illustrated a point. During the questions, some of them very lengthy, following the statements, and the answers, some of them also very lengthy, we heard assurances from the Dispatch Box by Ministers that account would be taken of the many valid points made in those exchanges. The Northern Ireland Minister—I say with sympathy the unfortunate Northern Ireland Minister—does not have the freedom to give the assurance that account will be taken of anything said in this debate or the four other debates, because there is nothing that he can do. He dare not give that assurance, because the die is cast, and there is nothing that the Government can say in response to any points raised in the debate.
Even if all hon. Members present desired a change in the legislation, and even if the Front Bench agreed that a change were desirable, there is nothing that the Government could do about it. This is all a charade and a deception. Earlier today the Leader of the House assured us, as he did on business questions last week, that he is engaged in consultations with a view to finding a remedy to this situation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down has shown that some hon. Members are being consulted more than others. Rather than perpetuate this pantomime, it would be far better, and far more honest of the Government if, at the state opening of each Parliament, they introduced a Sessional motion giving advance approval to every and any order that the Northern Ireland Office might think fit to invent during the Session.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: This order, being unamendable and restricted — despite its moral, constitutional and medical importance — to a short debate, is the Government's misguided attempt to force mass medication with a very dangerous substance upon a largely unsuspecting and trusting public in Northern Ireland.
The Government are doing this, not because they are a malign or ill-meaning Government—just the opposite — but because their advisers will not take the time


objectively to assess the evidence of positive harm that fluoride does to our bodily functions, just as they refused to assess the evidence about thalidomide.
This Government, of all Governments, are brushing aside the invasion of individual liberty that mass medication involves, in favour of a medical lobby that does not care a fig about freedom of the individual or even medical ethics. If people believe that this rat poison will do their children good, they are free to put it in their water. But if the people do not so believe, or cannot possibly benefit because they are past benefiting or have no teeth —a sizeable proportion of the British population are in that state — why, oh why, should they be forced by Government diktat to take it?
I do not understand why the Government go on allowing themselves to be conned by a small faction of the medical profession obsessed with the so-called benefits of fluoridation, when those claims are, on an almost monthly basis, being disproved. I do not know why the Government go on accepting as scientific "fact" that fluoridation does no harm, when so little work has been done on its long-term effects, when the dose cannot be regulated because people drink different amounts of water or tea, or eat different amounts of substances cooked in fluoride, or breathe fluoridated air, or brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste when no one seems to give a damn about the effects on people who are allergic to it, or who, like kidney dialysis patients, are positively known to be harmed by fluoride, and when so much of the rest of the civilised world refuses to have any truck with the substance. I simply do not understand why a Conservative Government. believing as they do in the freedom of the individual. have allowed themselves to go into the totalitarian business of mass-medicating the public water supply when not one single life will be saved by such measures. We are now inflicting this dangerous nonsense, not on our worst enemies, but on our friends in Northern Ireland.
Not only were the Government conned into passing the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, but the conning goes on and on and the medical cranks get bolder. Let me give some examples. First, every Government publication by the Fluoridation Society repeats the lie that there is no evidence that fluoride causes any harm. How can the Government be party to that lie? Countless reports from reputable university researchers in the United States, Japan and Sweden and all the major countries of the Western world report physical harm. A few are listed in my short speech in the debate on the Bill in 1985. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I have no intention of repeating them now.
Since then, the evidence has continued to emerge. For brevity's sake I shall cite only one example. Scientists from the Medical Research Council's neuro-endocrinology unit in Newcastle upon Tyne now say that aluminium contamination of food and water is a possible cause of Alzheimer's disease — senile dementia — which affects three quarters of a million people in Britain. Two Sri Lankan scientific researchers reported to the reputable science journal, Nature, that fluoride added to water at one part per million brings a thousandfold increase in the aluminium content of water that is boiled to cook cabbages, tomatoes and other acidic foods.
I can understand the pro-fluoridation supporters saying that there is evidence on both sides and that they prefer the evidence that fluoride is utterly safe. But one has to be a

fanatic to say that there is no evidence at all of any harm. Of course, if the fluoro-fanatics were to admit that there was some evidence of harm, that would be the end of fluoridation, because the public would not accept it for one moment. Therefore, the fanatics continue the fraudulent pretence and the Government go along with it. It does not seem to matter how many reputable scientists, from however many reputable universities, or however many Nobel prize winners, say that it causes harm, they keep repeating that there is no evidence.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that stomach cancers as a result of fluoridation have been reported in America? Does his speech cover that aspect?

Mr. Lawrence: No, because my speech is meant to be short. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Secondly, every Government-supported publication on the subject repeats the assertion that as certain towns and cities have seen a reduction of dental caries in children's teeth after fluoridation, that is because of fluoridation, although the evidence is growing all the time that the same decrease in dental caries takes place where no fluoride is added to the water at all. I should like to read an extract from the reputable journal Nature, of 10 July 1986. A research scientist from the Australian National University in Canberra says:
In fluoridated areas, there are now many … studies which record large reductions in the incidence of caries. The results of these and of fixed time surveys have led to the `fluoridation hypothesis', namely, that the principal cause of these reductions is fluoridation.
Until the early 1980s, there had been comparatively few longitudinal studies of caries in unfluoridated communities … But during the period 1979–1981, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas … The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time.
The scientist cites the following places in Britain: Bristol, Devon, Gloucestershire, the Isle of Wight, north-west England, Scotland, Shropshire and Somerset.
The reason for the improvement is that we eat better food and a better diet, less sugar, more whole-germ cereals and more brushing of the teeth, but the reason is riot fluoride. He concludes by saying:
Perhaps the real mystery of declining tooth decay is why so much effort has gone into poor quality research on fluoridation, instead of on the more fundamental questions of diet and immunity.
The Government are allowing themselves to be conned.
Thirdly, every fluoro-fanatical publication declares that all that is happening is a minimal topping up of the natural fluoride in the water, when that topping up is frequently a hundredfold increase, and when there is an important difference between naturally fluoridated water that has a high calcium and manganese content, which both reduce the harmful effects of fluoride and strengthen the teeth, and artificial fluoride, which contains much less calcium and manganese, and which is the effluent of heavy industrial processes.
Fourthly, emboldened by their unlikely support from an otherwise sensible Government, the fluoro-fanatics are now going on to even more incredible feats. They have persuaded Gallup, an otherwise highly reputable pollster, to ask a thoroughly absurd and unethical question: "Do


you think fluoride should be added to the water if it can reduce tooth decay?" That question biases the answer. Of course everyone would vote for that, just as people would vote for the devil himself if they thought that it would would do any good. The fluoro-fanatics claim 71 per cent. in favour of fluoride in 1985 and 76 per cent. in 1987. That is nonsense. If the question was asked: "Do you think that fluoride should be added to the water supply?", that answer would not be received, and the fanatics know it. In practically every local poll taken in areas all over Britain the public are massively opposed to adding that substance to their water, and so are the elected district councils, county councils and parish councils.
Fifthly, so cocky have the fluoro-fanatics become that they have even investigated my district. They proudly put in their magazine:
5 year olds
Fluoridated Uttoxeter
An average of less than one tooth affected per child
Non-fluoridated Burton
An average of over two teeth affected per child.
I am afraid that that is not very persuasive. To begin with, it is untrue that Uttoxeter is, or ever has been, fluoridated. It has natural fluoride, at a level of 0·9 per cent. That statement in the magazine is misleading. It is likely that children in rural areas will tend to eat more healthy food than the Asian immigrant community from which a substantial part of the sample was taken in the inner Burton area. We all know how much they delight in sweet food and that as yet they are not as conscientious about teaching their children to brush their teeth and have a proper diet as others are. To make the comparison between only 321 children in Uttoxeter and 186 in Burton and then to plaster all over the page in a magazine the statement that children in Uttoxeter have half the number of dental caries cases of children in Burton is misleading.
Evidence is now beginning to emerge in the fluoridated parts of my area of discoloration of children's teeth. One should tell the public that by the time they have breathed fluoride through the air, brushed their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste and consumed fluoride at one party per million whenever they drink water, tea or beer, or eat food that has been boiled in fluoridated water, their children will grow up to have brown, mottled and discoloured teeth. If one told the public that, would 75 per cent. be in favour of fluoridation? The information is nonsense and misleading, and the Government are going along with it.
I am sorry to see that the Government have taken no notice of the flaw that has developed in the British legislation, because they repeat it exactly in the Northern Ireland order. The Government were making a great concession to us. They would not allow the decision to be made by elected local authorities, but notice would be served upon them, and they had to be consulted. The idea was to keep the decision to fluoridate local even though there would not be democratic decisions, but that is not happening.
Let me give an example from the Burton area. Under the section that talks of the continuity of existing fluoridation schemes, notice need not be given if a scheme was in operation when the Act became effective. The same thing is being repeated in the order. To us that meant that if work was being undertaken, and hundreds of thousands of pounds spent, the local authority need not be consulted.
But that is not how it is being interpreted. If there are any plans on paper, that is to be a "scheme", and that will stop people from being notified and consulted.
Therefore, these fluoridation procedures can be steamrollered through without consulting the people whom we in the House decided to consult. That could be corrected if we could amend the order, which we cannot, and that is deplorable too. The Government should not go along with that, because they know that that is what is happening and I am sad to see it put in this legislation as though nothing wrong was happening.
Artifical fluoridation of the water supply has been carried on under consecutive Governments. I always said that it was unlawful, and I was right. The court in Scotland said that it was unlawful, and now we have changed the law to make it lawful, and it is being extended to Northern Ireland. It is also undemocratic and will go on being so unless the Government stop giving money to nonsense public opinion polls and stop turning a blind eye to breaches of Parliament's clear intention to give notification and consultation rights to local authorities.
Artificial flouridation is unbeneficial because the evidence of benefit is now being confounded, as it was as long ago as 1969 by the Government's own survey. It is unsafe, as a massive amount of evidence now shows. It is unethical for doctors to advocate mass medication where the patient, the dose and the state of the patient's health are unknown. It is also a shocking deprivation of individual liberty.
The order, like its parent legislation, is an utter disgrace, and I shall have no part in it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Today's debate seems to be on the merits and demerits of fluoridation, yet the order is permissive rather than mandatory. I have great confidence that the people of Northern Ireland will vehemently express their view, district by district, on whether they want to be fluoridated. I have no doubt that all the district councils, area boards and many other organisations will make their views well known.
I am concerned not with the arguments for or against fluoridation but with the legislation before us and I want to ask the Minister about some what are to me, but obviously not to him, obscure points. In doing so, I 'draw the attention of the House to the unique fact that the Minister responsible is acting not only as the Secretary of State for the Environment but as the Secretary of State for Social Services. Therefore, in a sense, the Minister can either cure or bury us.
It appears from paragraph 3 that the Department of the Environment may, without further application, increase the dosage of fluoridation which is referred to in paragraph 3(4) without any further reference to any other body or authority.
Paragraph 3(6) says:
Water to which fluoride has been added by the Department in exercise of the power conferred by this Article … may be supplied by the Department to consumers in any other area"—
I emphasise the words "any other area".—
in connection with the carrying out of any works … by the Department.
Why does that power appear to give the Department the ability to fluoridate areas which have not requested it,


acquiesced in it or agreed to it? That is also extended to the operation of existing fluoridation schemes under paragraph 5(3)(b).
Because time is pressing I want to deal with only two further points concerning publicity and consultation. I am aware, like many previous speakers, of the considerable intentions to consult organisations, health boards and district councils and I hope that they will be carried out. But the order gives the DHSS power to direct that the article giving the protection of public consultation shall not apply in relation to any proposal of the board to withdraw an application or to terminate a preserved scheme. Those dichotomies of the order require clarification, if possible this afternoon.
I am fairly familiar with Northern Ireland, as one may assume. We have five health and social service boards and 26 district councils serving a population of only 1·25 million. Will water fluoridation be carried out by district health board, by district council area, or in areas dealing with water conservation or water distribution? Unless we have a network of stopcocks, how can fluoridated water be prevented from flowing from an area which desires it to one which does not?

Mr. Needham: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and welcome him to his position. I hope that we shall have more time in future to discuss these matters.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) feels that I took him to task. I assure him that it was only because he accused me of not being at my post in the Province as often as I should be, which is not fair or true.
I understand the feelings of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), as he is well aware, but there was a consultation period on these orders. It would have been helpful to have had his and his colleagues' views. I understand why we did not, but nevertheless that facility was there.
I have read with great care everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) had said in previous debates. I have been through all the points that he has made over a lengthy period, but I cannot agree with many of them with regard to Northern Ireland and the treating of children there, which the order is designed to assist.
I assure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that there is no question of areas being fluoridated against their will or against the procedure laid down in the Order. Where water is no longer available because of a breakdown or maintenance, water boards will be able to take it from a fluoridated to a non-fluoridated area. Once the work is completed, that will cease. I appreciate that I may not have dealt fully with all the hon. Gentleman's points, but I assure him that I shall write to him.
This measure will be of immense benefit to most children in Northern Ireland and I am sure that it will be welcomed by them and their parents.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 40.

Division No. 28]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boscawen, Hon Robert





Bottomley, Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
McGrady, E. K.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Bright, Graham
Maclean, David


Burt, Alistair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butcher, John
Major, Rt Hon John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cash, William
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Martlew, Eric


Chapman, Sydney
Maude, Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Cope, John
Neale, Gerrard


Couchman, James
Needham, Richard


Cran, James
Neubert, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Newton, Tony


Curry, David
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Page, Richard


Devlin, Tim
Paice, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Dover, Den
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Dunn, Bob
Porter, David (Waveney)


Durant, Tony
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Favell, Tony
Redwood, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Riddick, Graham


Forman, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shaw, David (Dover)


Freeman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


French, Douglas
Sims, Roger


Gale, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Stern, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Summerson, Hugo


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Harris, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hayes, Jerry
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hill, James
Thurnham, Peter


Hind, Kenneth
Tredinnick, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Trippier, David


Holt, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howard, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Irvine, Michael
Walden, George


Jack, Michael
Waller, Gary


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Wheeler, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wilkinson, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilshire, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Knowles, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Lang, Ian
Yeo, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lee, John (Pendle)



Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lilley, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





NOES


Alton, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashby, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bidwell, Sydney


Beggs, Roy
Butler, Chris






Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Parry, Robert


Forth, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ground, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hinchliffe, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hood, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Janman, Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Kennedy, Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Wray, James


Lawrence, Ivan



Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. William Ross and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Maginnis, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Andrenn F. Bennett: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise two points, the first of which is on the procedure on the Bill.
I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is an extremely unusual procedure for a Bill to start in the House in 1984 and for us to continue to consider it now. You will further agree that for some of that time delay occurred as a result of Labour Members objecting to the principle. But for more than 12 months the Bill made no progress as a result of a decision by the promoters not to press for time for the Bill to continue. The result is that the Bill was introduced in 1984, had its Second Reading in 1985, and was considered in Committee in 1986.
The information put to that Committee is obviously out of date. In particular, the company that originally started to promote the Bill has been taken over and many of the officials who gave evidence to the Committee are no longer able to represent the company, so there must be considerable doubt about some of their evidence. We are now supposed to consider the Bill on the basis of the evidence from the report of that Committee, when clearly circumstances have changed.
At the end of Committee proceedings nothing was done except to table two carry-over motions, so now the Bill is returned to us. We are halfway through consideration and there are considerable difficulties in recapping the evidence given to the Committee because of the change of ownership of the company and changing circumstances, such as the progress made on the Channel Tunnel Bill.
Will you also consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we now have a different elected body. Many hon. Members of the present House could not consider the earlier proceedings. It is possible for them to check on the debates in this Chamber, but as I understand it a transcript of the evidence given in Committee is not easily available. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for new hon. Members to get the historic information.
This is an unsatisfactory procedure. I understand that the House has set up a Committee to consider private business. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may feel that, rather than give a ruling now, it would be better to refer the procedure of this Bill to that Committee for it to consider whether this is the way in which legislation on private business should be considered.
My second point is that when our proceedings were suspended—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I had better deal with one point at a time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion that enables us to consider the Bill was approved by the House. Therefore, our proceedings today are completely in order.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a fairly new Member and I seek your guidance because I was not in the House from 1983 to 1987.
As I understand it, on page 273, Erskine May gives us guidance that at the end of a Parliament everything before the House is quashed. I know that there has been a new Standing Order which allows business to be carried from


one Session to the next, but the guidance in Erskine May is to ensure that limitations are placed on Parliaments to stop one Parliament from binding all future Parliaments. Indeed, that is an important principle of our British constitution.
I seek an assurance that new hon. Members, like me, will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in a reasonable period because there are rumours that attempts will be made to force closure motions without adequate debate. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not be keen on that and I appeal to you and your sense of fair play to ensure that we have a proper opportunity for consideration of the Bill. It is this Parliament, not any past Parliament, which makes the decision and we should like a proper opportunity to reflect and to make the correct decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These matters will be for the occupant of the Chair at the relevant time. What the hon. Gentleman has said will, as always, be taken into account by the Chair.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance.
When our proceedings were suspended on 15 July 1986 we had debated a group of amendments which were designed to ensure that any application to proceed would have to be put to the Secretary of State. Following a closure motion, we voted on the first group of amendments, which was headed by a new clause. We were pleased that the new clause should be added to the Bill. However, when we started that debate on the first group of amendments the occupant of the Chair said:
With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6 … No. 8 … No. 9 … No. 10 … and … No. 11."—[Official Report, 15 July 1986; vol. 101, c. 917.]
We could not vote on those amendments because of lack of time. From looking at the selection of amendments before us now, I see that amendment No. 6—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are included in the amendments before the House this evening and have been selected by Mr. Speaker for debate.

Mr. Bennett: I cannot see amendments Nos. 6, 10 and 11, but I can see amendments Nos. 8 and 9. If they have been renumbered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful if you could tell me the changed numbers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are included in the second group selected.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in the preamble, in page 2, leave out lines 15 to 18.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 3, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
`and provided that the framework of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme is in no way impaired consequent on the removal of any area from the jurisdiction of the Ipswich Port Authority.'.
No. 4, in page 4, line 40, leave out clause 4.
No. 41. in title, line 3, leave out from 'dock' to 'to' in line 5.

Mrs. Clwyd: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a long association with this Bill going back over several months. I have heard many arguments about the Bill and have taken a keen interest in those of the promoters, particularly as they were major contributors to the Conservative party. I am afraid that they appear since to have ceased their contributions, but, over a long period of time, we heard some of the arguments of the promoters of the Bill and of those who objected to its passage.
The Bill has some critical repercussions that affect trade unions and employment in registered ports, even though its provisions relate particularly to the ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich. If the Bill became law it would have repercussions for ports throughout the whole of Britain. It is important not to lose sight of that when we are discussing the Bill tonight.
In its expansion up the Orwell estuary the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has to acquire new legal and operational limits. If it acquires that new area, the company will be taken into an area of jurisdiction which, at present, belongs to the Ipswich port authority. That expansion will take a chunk out of the Ipswich port authority, so the Bill, in effect, alters the boundaries. Whereas Ipswich is a scheme port — that is relevant — Felixstowe is not. [Interruption.] Therefore, the expansion takes place into an established area of registered dock work.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Did my hon. Friend hear the intervention from the Conservative Front Bench referring to the dock labour scheme? It appears that Conservative Members are very sensitive to these matters. Could it be that they are unwilling to underwrite by reasonable law and decent regulations the working conditions of men and women in this country, and that they wish to extend the principle which was turned around 70 or 80 years ago in this country?

Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point. I heard the intervention to which he referred, and I think that I should respond to it.
Perhaps the suggestion is that I have some pecuniary interest in the Bill. As the intervention made the point that it was something to do with the Transport and General Workers Union, I should make it clear at the outset that my interest in the Transport and General Workers Union is not a monetary one. I am sponsored by that union but I do not receive one penny in my pocket. If one looks at the register of Members' interests, one will see that, unlike those of some Conservative Members, my interests are registered in full; I want to encourage other hon. Members to do the same.

Mr. Peter Snape: While my hon. Friend is accurately and correctly refuting some of the sedentary allegations that are being made from the Conservative Benches, will she draw the attention of the House to the debate on this matter that was held on 14 July 1986, when an impassioned plea against the Bill was heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (M r. Hill), who is not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and who has never been seen in the front of a demonstration for better working conditions for dockers in Southampton or anywhere else?

Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting point. It has apparently silenced Conservative Members; it must have wounded them deeply.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the last general election my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in whose constituency this dock is, had posters put up for him by the dockers there? That shows what their real interest and concern is.

Mr. Snape: It goes to show.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It would be helpful to the whole House and to me if the hon. Lady could now deal with the amendment.

Mrs. Clwyd: That would be a great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point about the scheme ports is relevant to the argument. It means, in a nutshell, that if the Bill goes through, it will be used as the political vehicle to roll back the dock labour scheme without any negotiations. As far as I am aware, this is the first time that the scheme has been breached unilaterally in this way. That sets a bad precedent. Port workers in Ipswich certainly take that view, and the Transport and General Workers Union, which has a national policy of supporting and extending registered dock work, believes the same.

Mr. Michael Irvine: Might I remind the hon. Lady that the electorate of Ipswich at the last general election removed from the House of Commons the principal opponent of the Bill and substituted for him an hon. Member—me—who, during the election campaign, included in his campaign literature strong arguments in favour of the Bill. The people of Ipswich have therefore had the chance to pronounce their verdict on the Bill, and they have done so in its favour.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am sure that the electorate of Ipswich will have cause to rue the day that it elected the hon. Gentleman. When we have the next general election he will find that his slim majority was nothing to boast about at this stage in his brief career in the House.
The port of Ipswich and its workers operate under the scheme. That means that the authority has to be registered with the dock labour board. Dock workers, too, have to be registered, and have negotiated protection against redundancies. A negotiated disciplinary procedure operates under the scheme, as does a minimum wage—I am sure that there is not universal acclaim for that from Conservative Members. However, the minimum wage operates there, and there is also pay if work is temporarily not available.
No doubt Felixstowe will argue that it cannot operate non-scheme work in one part of its port and scheme work in another. However, that ignores the fact that the national scheme is being eroded unilaterally, without the semblance of any agreement. That has repercussions for ports throughout the whole of Britain. No doubt Felixstowe will argue that it needs to be entirely non-scheme to be competitive. That omits the fact that many scheme ports in Britain—there are about 80 of them— substantially improved their competitive performance. Some of those are east coast and Wash ports, such as Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Lowestoft, King's Lynn and Wisbech.
This debate will doubtless range into general arguments about registered dock work and the scheme. For the sake of the Conservative hon. Members who may not be fully aware precisely of how the 1967 dock work employment scheme operates, and how important a development it was for dockers in this country, I shall briefly remind the

House of the position. I shall not list all 80 ports—that would be stretching your tolerance too far, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I shall list some of the areas of the country where those ports are, because it is important to show their spread throughout Britain. There are scheme ports in Tyne and Wear, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, in Hull and Goole, Grimsby and Immingham, and in the Wash ports; there are scheme ports in East Anglia and in London, in Medway and Swale on the south coast, and in Bristol on the Severn; in south Wales—I know most of these ports, as might be expected—there are Barry and Cardiff, Penarth, Newport, Port Talbot and Swansea. I think that every Welsh Member recognises how important it is to the dockers who work in those ports that they are registered under the dock workers employment scheme. There are scheme ports in the Liverpool area, Manchester, Fleetwood, Cumbria, west Scotland, Plymouth—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In Workington.

Mrs. Clwyd: —in Workington, Cornwall, Aberdeen and east Scotland. I hope that Conservative Members, when they see the scheme's benefits, will want to support its continuation and to promote the non-erosion of the scheme in other ports.
The scheme's essential element is limitation of entry to dock work through the requirements that port employers engaged in dock work should be registered with the National Dock Labour Board and that dock workers should be registered and through the restriction on dock workers to he registered dock workers. In addition, under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966, port employers in scheme ports are required to obtain a licence before engaging or employing a person as a dock worker. The scheme covers the centralised hiring and allocation of dock workers, a guaranteed minimum weekly wage for dock workers, a temporary unattached dock workers' payment for attendance for work if none is available, and a disciplinary procedure in relation to registered dock workers.
Dock workers can be dismissed from the industry only with the approval of the local dock labour board. Once registered, a dock worker—anyone who believes in good employment practice must support this scheme—is likely to enjoy absolute job security, unless he is convicted of misconduct or opts for voluntary severance under the relatively generous terms offered by the National Dock Labour Board.
The cost of the scheme is met from a levy of 3 per cent. on registered employers' gross wages bill. Additional Government grants and loans have been made available —I pay tribute to the Government for that—to assist in the financing of severance schemes, the latter having become an essential instrument in combating overmanning in the industry.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members cannot object to the principle, which she has just outlined, under which a levy is paid to provide enhanced redundancy payments? They support a similar scheme for steel workers which is provided under the European Coal and Steel Community programme and is supported through the treaty of Paris by the Common Market, which they avidly support, so Conservative Members cannot take issue with my hon. Friend on the point of principle.

Mrs. Clwyd: That is an important point. Those of us who know what happened with large-scale redundancies in the steel industry know how important that protection was. Given that there may be even more redundancies in the steel industry following what we have heard today in the House, people in all parts of the country are grateful for that provision.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Lady is talking about a comparison between the dock labour scheme and Felixstowe. What are the wages in the Felixstowe docks? Are they higher or lower than in other docks in the scheme?

Mrs. Clwyd: I do not think that that is particularly relevant to the point that we are discussing. My argument is that there should not be an erosion of the policy which successive Governments have approved. The policy should not be eaten into by this kind of hack-door, hole-in-the-wall approach to the problem throughout Britain. If that happens with this Bill, similar things will happen throughout Britain. That will be a negative development in the proper planning of port provision in Britain. I shall develop my argument and I am sure that the new Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will gradually come to applaud our point of view.
The numbers covered by the dock workers employment scheme have fallen from a peak of 82,500 in 1951 to 12,438 in 1984, the last year for which figures were available. Employers are seeking 2,000 more voluntary redundancies over the next few years. Reductions in requirements for dock workers generally are due to a variety of factors, such as containerisation and the development of roll-on, roll-off facilities at ports. A reduction in the requirement for registered dock workers is attributable to business preference shifting in geographical terms from traditional ports such as Liverpool to those in the south-east, nearer foreign markets, and to some businesses taking their trade to non-scheme ports, which are often cheaper.
Non-scheme ports are often cheaper because the port employers are not paying the DWES levy and because the earnings of non-registered dock workers are less than those of registered dock workers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is the answer for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

Mrs. Clwyd: That is his answer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is not listening.

Mrs. Clwyd: He is not listening because he does not want to know the answer. He would have heard it had he waited just a little while.
The advantages of the DWES must be seen in their historical context when pre-DWES workers were without employment protection and often had a precarious existence. Consequently, importers and exporters suffered because the labour necessary for loading or unloading was not always available. Anyone who remembers the dockyard schemes when dockers were queuing and scrabbling for jobs would not want to see a return to that unedifying sight.
Protection for dock workers still exists, but the decline in dock work, the financial costs of the DWES, and difficulties encountered in reducing manning have

contributed to undermining the position of scheme port employers vis-à-vis employers in non-scheme ports, who are unfettered by any restrictions on the use of labour.
The Bill gives added strength to the port employers' long-term ambition to whittle down the numbers and the geographical areas that come under the scheme's jurisdiction. I maintain that, if' there is to be such a reduction. it should be within a national strategic framework, not in the way proposed in the Bill. Many similar measures in the Bill, such as those dealing with environmental policy, should be more properly discussed in the House by the responsible Ministers, rather than by bringing such a Bill in through the back door.
For many months, the Opposition have vigorously opposed this legislation. There were long sittings in Committee and eventually the Bill was considered on the Floor of the House. Because of various difficulties within the Government, we are dealing with it yet again. The principles which we enunciated at the beginning of the debate on the Bill still hold good. They are that environmental policy, ports policy and employment policy should not be determined in this way. Certain basic questions about the advisability of extending this type of scheme have never been properly answered. The need for the Bill has never been properly explained in Committee, on the Floor of the House or in written answers from the relevant Ministers. I hope that the Minister w ill not support bringing such important policy decisions forward in this hole-in-the-wall way. I appeal to Conservative Members to show their objection to the Bill and to support the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment. Perhaps I should start by making it clear to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) that, while Ken Weetch fought hard against the Bill and for the interests of the people of Ipswich, who did not want extra traffic passing their homes or the disruption of the port facilities, Opposition Members also expounded much wider principles involved in the Bill. Many of us felt that the destruction of the natural habitat of wild birds was a matter of major national concern, as were the attempts to over-provide this country with container port facilities— particularly in view of the Channel tunnel proposals— and the attempt to disrupt the dock workers employment scheme. Those matters were of concern not merely to Ipswich and Felixtowe but to the country as a whole.
Opposition Members have always argued that for legislation such as this the private Bill procedure is inappropriate, first, because the procedures for debates in the House are unsuitable and, secondly, because it does not give people in the local community a proper opportunity to argue their case, as a planning inquiry would. Furthermore, the procedure lacks the vigorous discipline normally applied to Government or private Members' Bills which have to get through the House in one 12-month period. Earlier, on a point of order, I referred to the farcical nature of a procedure that allows us to be debating a Bill introduced in 1984—so that people petition against it on the basis of circumstances pertaining in 1984 — three years later, when many of those circumstances have changed dramatically.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) asked about the comparative rates of pay for dock workers inside and outside the scheme. He should examine more carefully the reasons why the dock work scheme was introduced.
Some people in the scheme have made some sacrifices in the rates of pay that they enjoy but that has all been a part of the attempt to introduce an orderly dock policy and orderly employment arrangements as distinct from those that applied before the scheme. Before the scheme, the conditions and the exploitation of workers in the docks were appalling.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when comparing union and non-union labour, one should remember that union labour is essential? Without union-organised labour there is no incentive to keep rates of pay higher. As soon as trade union membership is taken away, the whole thing sinks. For example, Marks and Spencer is anxious to deter people from joining a trade union, but were it not for the fact that USDAW negotiates basic rates of pay Marks and Spencer would not have sought to pay above those rates to discourage people from joining the union.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I look forward to further interventions from him, as he has considerable knowledge of employment legislation.
Before the dock labour scheme was introduced, people had to turn up each day in the hope that they would get work. That would depend on factors such as whether their face fitted and on whether they had a reputation for behaviour that suited the employer. On many occasions many more people turned up than were likely to be employed and wages varied substantially from day to day and from week to week. Those conditions were always intolerable, but as dock work declined and containerisation came in so that the number of people employed fell, they would have become more so had it not been for the dock work scheme. I pay tribute to the scheme because the scheme and the redundancy payments made available through it allowed an orderly rundown of the numbers employed in the industry to take account the new practices and the use of containers.
7.45 pm
It is a worrying and deplorable fact that, while the cost of the scheme has been borne by all the registered ports and their workers, one or two ports have managed to get a free ride and avoid any collective responsibility. Felixstowe is one of the ports that got that free ride and attempted to take work away from the other ports. Anyone who was concerned to see justice for those who work in the dock industry would have applauded the scheme rather than attacking the ports involved in it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in broad terms, dock labour in Felixstowe is better paid and more secure than in most other ports and that if Felixstowe has succeeded in attracting more traffic it has done so because it is more competitive and people prefer to go there?

Mr. Bennett: I do not accept those arguments. I repeat that Felixstowe got a free ride, whereas all the other ports contributed to ensuring that the industry was organised in a reasonable way and that workers were not suddenly thrown on the scrap heap with no redundancy payment or exploited in other ways. If, on occasions, their rates for handling cargo were slightly higher and their rates of pay

lower than in Felixstowe, it was because those ports took collective responsibility for the industry. It is worrying that Felixstowe seems to be proud of the fact that it showed no collective concern for dockers anywhere else or for other ports but simply hoped that it could prosper at the expense of others.
I know that Conservative Members like the idea of one person making a profit out of others' misery and suffering. However, Opposition Members — and, I think, the majority of people in this country—do not believe that that is the way to behave. That is the basis of our major objection to the Bill. It represents a further attempt to improve conditions for a small group of people involved with the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Company and those who have taken it over and to allow them possibly to make further profits. Perhaps it will result in extra jobs in Felixstowe, although I understand that on the grapevine, at least, there is considerable concern that there will be a substantial number of redundancies at Felixstowe in the not-too-distant future. When economic circumstances make operations less viable, Felixstowe will discover that it would have been better to participate in the dock labour scheme which would have offered an organised way in which to run down the numbers employed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The number of people employed in the registered docks has decreased, whereas at Felixstowe, which is not in the scheme, there was a 36 per cent. increase in the number of people employed between 1976 and 1983. If the Bill goes through, there will he further job opportunities — possibly a further 1,000. What is more, so far from being a dock without trade union representation, Felixstowe has 100 per cent. Transport and General Workers Union membership.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made several points in his intervention to which I shall be delighted to reply. First, there has been a substantial change in dock practice. When I was a youngster, I used to go to Manchester docks from time to time, where a substantial amount of cargo was manhandled out of ships' holds. It was often passed along a human chain from the hold on to the deck and then on to the dockside. In some instances, carts were used to take the produce away to warehouses. Bags of flour and other produce were taken out of ships in that way. Since then, there has been a major revolution in the way in which cargo is handled. It is no longer handled physically by workers on the dock. In most instances, there is containerisation, the containers being moved by mechanical means that require considerable skill. This great change in the method of handling has led to a dramatic fall in the number of dockers required to load and unload.
How was that dramatic decrease in employment achieved? There was no free-for-all in which many dockers lost their jobs without compensation with no alternative work being offered. A dock labour scheme was introduced that brought about an orderly decline in the number of dockers employed. It produced reasonable compensation for those who lost their jobs and ensured that Britain had a modern dock system with modern handling equipment. It ensured also that the few workers who remained in the docks were able to be paid a decent wage. I contend that the scheme enabled those things to happen.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is most surprising when we consider that unemployment in Pembroke is among the highest in Wales? His lack of sensitivity towards the problems of the unemployed is highlighted by his intervention. It provides further evidence of the north-south divide and the inability of Conservative Members to understand that we want to spread employment more evenly throughout Britain rather than concentrating it once again in the south-east of England.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I hope that she will not discourage the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) from intervening. I think that the hon. Gentleman may serve a useful purpose in illustrating the arguments that are being advanced by both sides of the House.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to join him in his filibuster. In other words, I do not intend to participate further in the debate. However, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has referred to me and unemployment in the industry, I shall tell the House that my great grandfather, Tom Mann, was one of the leaders of the 1889 dock strike, when conditions were appalling. We are talking now, however, of a modern industry and not of conditions 100 years ago.

Mrs. Clwyd: What is the unemployment rate in Pembroke?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We are talking about a modern industry that uses containerisation and we are looking for more jobs. The hon. Lady talks about my constituency and high unemployment, and she is right to say that there is high unemployment in Pembroke. I would be delighted to have a company such as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company at Milford Haven, and I would be delighted to bring jobs there. I do not believe that artificial restrictions and restraints on trade at Felixstowe will help my constituents. I want to see a company in my constituency that is something like the Felixstowe company.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has much hope of getting the likes of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company in his constituency. It would be difficult geographically to justify that, and there is the much more serious problem of overcapacity within the dock system.
Since the Bill first appeared before the House and our discussions this evening, we have seen the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the P and O takeover of European Ferries, and a substantial section of the report is devoted to over-capacity. I have argued already that a dock labour scheme is necessary if we are to cope with over-capacity. When there is over-capacity, too much dock space, too many pieces of equipment for the unloading of containers and too many workers in the industry, it is crazy that we should be confronted with a Bill that is seeking to increase capacity. If capacity is increased at Felixstowe, it is inevitable that capacity will have to he reduced elsewhere. If the reduction in capacity elsewhere means that we end up with unused dock areas that cannot be used by wild birds that have been chased off the marshes and tidal flats at Felixstowe, wildlife will suffer accordingly.
Conservative Members say that it is ridiculous that we cannot have extra jobs at Felixstowe without losing them elsewhere. Is the hon. Member for Ipswich arguing that the volume of trade and dock activity can be increased overall? Account must be taken of the Channel tunnel development and the fact that volumes of materials entering and leaving the United Kingdom have tended to reduce although their value has tended to increase. This means that the likelihood of extra dockland capacity being needed is extremely remote. We have over-capacity, and it is likely that we shall see it increase because of the miniaturisation of so many products. It is likely that many containers will pass through the Channel tunnel rather than being shipped to ports.
It will be interesting to hear from Conservative Members whether they can give a guarantee that there will not be redundancies at Felixstowe. The rumour that is current at Felixstowe is that the labour force will face redundancies very soon. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is he prepared to guarantee that there will not be redundancies at Felixstowe in the next six months? I shall be pleased to give way if he is prepared to give that undertaking. I am sure that the Felixstowe dock workers will be delighted if someone from the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company or P and O were prepared to give the guarantee of no redundancies at Felixstowe.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps my hon. Friend should be clearer and say specifically that he addressed his comment to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). Will he repeat what he said? He asked the hon. Member for Ipswich to give a guarantee to his constituents that there would be no redundancies at a particular dock in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman has refused to give that undertaking to the House and his constituents.

Mr. Irvine: rose—

Mr. Bennett: It seems that the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to intervene.

Mr. Irvine: Of course I am not in a position to give guarantees. However, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the United Kingdom is now the fastest growing economy within Europe. A growing economy is the way to generate trade, and if trade is generated at the rate that has prevailed over the past three or four years, and if other docks are prepared to be as efficient, productive and hard working as the Felixstowe dock, there will be general prosperity.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the hon. Member for Ipswich was important. The hon. Gentleman knows that one of the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament is to keep in contact at every stage with companies in his constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The duties of a Member of Parliament are not relevant to the amendment. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who has the Floor, should confine himself to the amendment.

8.pm

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a useful and important


interchange, but I am worried that a Conservative Member has left his place to talk to other Conservative Members who have been seeking information. I hope that there is no attempt to intimidate Conservative Members and to prevent them from participating in the debate. One of the important principles of this place is that hon. Members should be free to air their views without any intimidation, arm twisting or any other influence to stop a free exchange of views within debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any intimidation between hon. Members has nothing to do with the Chair. There will be no intimidation so far as I am concerned. Every hon. Member who wishes to speak will be called.

Mr. Bennett: It is regrettable that some Conservative Members are discouraged from intervening. If the hon. Member for Pembroke wishes me to give way again, I shall be happy to do so if he stands, but I shall not do so if he remains in a sedentary position. It would be unfortunate if the advice of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was to shout rather than to ask to intervene.
Government Members are promoting the extension of the Felixstowe dock, an area of outstanding natural habitat, on the basis that they clearly see the need for such expansion. One of the fundamental things that they should have done before they signed up with the promoters was to ask whether there would be any redundancies either at Ipswich or at Felixstowe. They should give a guarantee that there will be no redundancies at Ipswich or Felixstowe. We know that they cannot guarantee that there will be no redundancies elsewhere because of the existing surplus port capacity and the likelihood that, if the proposals go ahead, there will be even greater surplus capacity. I realise that Conservative members are not prepared to guarantee to the people of Pembroke and other parts of the country that there will be no dock redundancies, but I am amazed that they are not prepared to guarantee that there will be no redundancies in Ipswich or Felixstowe docks. If there are to be redundancies, I am amazed at their objection to the docks being within the dock labour scheme that will enable an orderly framework for such redundancies to occur.
It is sad that we have to debate the dock labour scheme when discussing an amendment to a private Bill dealing with one dockland area rather than being able to discuss legislation in a national context and examining whether the scheme is working well, how it can be amended and how we can ensure that all docks in the country participate in the scheme and make their contribution to the orderly reduction of manpower within the industry, rather than allow one or two people to opt out and freeload by not taking part in the scheme.
It would have been useful to look at the way in which the scheme operates within the rest of East Anglia and satisfy ourselves that the expansion at Felixstowe will not have a detrimental affect on Great Yarmouth, Ipswich or Lowestoft. It is also important to try to find out whether P and O has the resources to fund the development. In Committee, the then directors of European Ferries assured us that they were determined to go ahead with the expansion, that they had the resources to do it, and that it would take place in the near future.
In regard to the last group of amendments, we were told that it would take place so quickly that our proposals for a safeguard—that it would have to go to the Secretary of State before the development could take place—were unnecessary. It was argued that the company was waiting to go ahead. We quickly realised that European Ferries was not in quite the financial position that it had led the Committee to believe. It was in a difficult financial position, and a takeover emerged.
Rumour suggests that P and O has not been over-impressed by the way in which the Felixstowe docks were managed and is looking for considerable change. There seems to be some doubt about whether it has the money to develop the proposed dock, particularly when the company has surplus capacity in other docks around the country, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report suggested. There is a strong possibility that it does not intend to carry out the development but that it wants the option simply to have the Bill so that it can try to sell off Felixstowe dock and that, when it sells it, it can claim that it is a slightly more attractive asset because there is the possibility that, at some future date, someone will want to develop the tidal areas and extend the dock. There is no certainty that the company wants to continue with the development.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised relates to the promoters of the Bill, may I say that I had the honour to serve as its promoter in the House. Before agreeing to resume promotion of the Bill in the House, I asked to see the chairman of P and O. I wanted to satisfy myself that the new owners of Felixstowe dock wanted to continue with the Bill and had the means to do so. I was totally satisfied by the chairman's personal assurances that that was the wish of the owners of Felixstowe dock and that resources were available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not disseminate rumours that he now knows to be untrue.

Mr. Bennett: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has assured us that the chairman of P and O is determined that the development will go ahead and that the rumours that it is trying to sell the Felixstowe dock and that there is no prospect of it going ahead on the basis that it is not prepared to invest the money are untrue.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Sir Freddie Laker, the chairman of a large aircraft company, gave similar assurances only a couple of days before Laker Airways went bust?

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
We had all sorts of assurances from European Ferries that it was in a position to go ahead with the development. It was quickly taken over, and one got a different impression of its financial viability. I refer to the report of the Mergers and Monopolies Commission. Obviously, I happily accept that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds sought and received such an undertaking.
The House may still have a little doubt about the matter, but it will be extremely reassuring for the people who work at Felixstowe dock to be guaranteed that they are not likely to be subject to a sell-out and that their jobs will remain. I noticed that there was no undertaking that there would be no redundancies. Again, as the promoter, if he had wished to allay such fears, the hon. Gentleman


would have jumped up quickly and made it absolutely clear that there was no prospect of redundancies at Felixstowe. We can only draw our own conclusions if he is not prepared to give that undertaking. Perhaps he did not ask the chairman of P and O for an undertaking with regard to redundancies. I should have thought that he would have pursued that matter, since that rumour, together with the one about the company's future, are going around.
Did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds ask P and O what its proposal was in regard to Southampton? It has considerable opportunities for expansion in Southampton. Did he find out what the balance would be between the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton? The implications of the Channel tunnel development certainly suggest that Southampton might become a more attractive port for container ships. They could call at Southampton to unload, using the Channel tunnel, rather than unloading at Felixstowe. No doubt P and O carefully examined such investment possibilities.
It still seems that, if P and O is concerned about the best interests of the docks and their operations in this country, it should not he too unhappy about having a dock workers' scheme extended to those ports of the development which come within the existing area of the Ipswich dock. That is basically the Opposition's argument in favour of the amendments. I suspect that my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude my remarks in support of the amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not profess to know much about this matter, and perhaps that makes me uniquely qualified to speak in the debate. My objections to the Bill arise from what happened a year and a half ago, when its promoters adopted tactics that were unbecoming to Parliament to try to secure its passage through a Private Bill Committee of the House. They know what I am talking about. I am sure that they are here today somewhere in the House, and they will remember that I made a point of visiting the Committee during its proceedings to see what was happening. They will know how people were appointed to that Committee. They will know that many of us objected in the strongest terms to the way in which it was presumed that Members of Parliament could he placed on a Committee and used to push through a Bill that could have been pressed in other ways.
As a result of that incident, we hope that the entire procedure will be changed. I am told that a Committee will be set up to examine the possibility of changing the procedure and, to that extent, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has been more than successful, because it has contributed to ending a practice which many of us believed to be wrong.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) made several interesting points. I shall address one of them before I venture into the body of my modest contribution. It relates to wages, salaries and conditions. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) suggested that the workers in the new port would be better off than those who currently work at Ipswich. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman suggested that those who work at Felixstowe now are better off than those who work at Ipswich.

Mr.Irvine: indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is not the case I stand to be corrected, but I thought that was what he said. I thought that his intervention was designed to prose to the House that the workers in the new dock company or in the expanded Felixstowe company would be better off than those at Ipswich.
That is not my understanding, and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us repeatedly that that was not the case. He said that they would be worse off, and he pointed to the representations made by the trade unions on these matters. The trade union briefs which my hon. Friends may have received today in no way argue the case for the company. We must presume that trade unions, by instinct, set out to protect the wages and conditions of the workers whom they represent. I must assume that, in the briefs which they have provided to those of us who take an interest in these matters, they are putting an objective case when they say that they do not want the development to go ahead in this form.
The trade unions give many reasons for their view. One is that the development of new container handling facilities in the United Kingdom while the present surplus capacity exists is completly unnecessary and will undoubtedly generate more unemployment, which will, under the current arrangements between the Government and the National Association of Port Employers, mean an initial cost to the taxpayer by way of severence and redundancy payments and the ongoing cost of unemployment benefits. Those are not my words, but those of the trade unions, which appear to oppose what is happening.
As a matter of background, they say—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Who says?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Transport and General Workers Union. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) seems to wish to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you will invite him to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not invite hon. Members to speak. They seek to catch my eye.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand it if I ignore the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
According to the union, the cargo handling services provided by British ports have been drastically reduced since 1967. The most prominent of those ports are Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, London and Bristol. The union says:
The loss of jobs of registered dock workers has also been reflected in job losses to the other non-registered workers in the industry. The port employers and port authorities associated directly with these ports are at this time seeking to reduce the number of workers both registered and non-registered because of under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities.

Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole case for the Felixstowe development is the contention that traffic will continue to grow. Is he aware that that contention is not backed by any information based on the volume of container traffic that will be carried through the Channel tunnel? Is he aware that we have never been given an estimate of how much container traffic will go through the Channel tunnel, and does he agree that the case for national need has not been made out?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: All I know is that I have not received any of the evidence that one would have thought the promoters would submit to hon. Members before the debate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will give us the information to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred. Once again, we are being refused information which the House clearly recognises is important to the debate.
I am interested in the phrase,
because of under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities.
As I understand it, it means that some cargo handling facilities in the United Kingdom are under-utilised. I understand the phrase "under-utilisation" to mean available for use but not being used. Therefore, we must assume that if this development took place, it would further aggravate the
current under-utilisation of existing cargo handling facilities within the United Kingdom.
The Minister was looking at me most attentively when I made my case, and then he shook his head. From that, I understand that he believes that what I am saying is of interest, but he does not agree with it. Perhaps the Minister will get to his feet and clarify the position for me, because it might help me in my later comments.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I did not want to intervene in the debate now, but I was hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, fairly soon. I was listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman. It is not self-evident that providing a capacity in a part of the country where there is no demand will ensure that demand is created when, in another part of the country, there is demand that one is seeking to suppress. The danger is that what does not go to Felixstowe will go to Rotterdam, not to the west country ports.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has spoken of providing capacity in parts of the country where there is no demand. However, as I understand it, the phrase
under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities
does not refer to the prospect of creating further capacity in other parts of the country. It relates to existing capacity which is not being utilised. I put it to the Minister; if that capacity exists, why not use it?

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Again the Minister shakes his head. I believe that his policy is to ensure the under-utilisation of capacity, for reasons which I do not quite understand.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the evidence that the Minister has failed to produce, the Bill seems to be—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that it is a practice that we would wish to follow for a Member to go to the Chair to express views which he should express during the course of the debate. We have repeatedly asked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for any Member of the House to approach the Chair, and that is not a point of order.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill appears to be introduced solely in the interests of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and not in the national interest as the promoters have tried to say in Committee and elsewhere? Their case has failed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is right. This whole affair is riddled with interests — people and organisations. That interest may be represented by the contribution of the company to the Conservative party —that fact was only drawn out during the proceedings on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley was a member of that Committee.
I apologise profusely to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for presuming that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was raising matters which he would otherwise raise in the debate. Clearly, I was mistaken. As invariably when I am mistaken, I apologise, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for presuming that he was raising a matter, but perhaps he would care to raise it—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Obviously not.
I wish to deal with the background to this scheme as it relates to the Felixstowe proposals. Over the years debate has taken place about the lack of a national ports policy. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to that.
There is a need for a national ports policy to ensure that where redundancies must take place they do so within an agreement between the Government, trade unions and the promoters of the particular ports. No such agreement currently exists in the United Kingdom. Such a national policy is needed for plans to develop the port industry. There is also an urgent need for new port developments to have regard to existing, available port facilities. Government direction should be given to developments of that nature. Clearly there is no Government consideration of existing available port facilities. Indeed, when the Minister intervened he was unable to suggest the existence of agreement between port authorities and trade unions on these matters. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will intervene again.
The effects of containerisation, roll-on/roll-off and unitised cargo have already reduced the registered dock labour force from approximately 65,000 in 1967 to 12,000 at the present time. That represents a major sacrifice by our dock workers. Gone are the days when there was industrial action in every port in the country because of the inflexibility of the employers and the lack of understanding of the need for reasonable working conditions and indeed a guaranteed week for port workers. One would have thought that the changes that the Government are proposing and those changes which the port authorities are promoting would take into account the sacrifice of those dock workers and ensure the widest possible consultation with workers in particular ports, and specifically in the ports that we are debating today.
An equal loss of jobs has occurred within the non-registered labour force and in associated companies in the immediate vicinity of ports and docks. Government grants and loans under various Finance Acts have provided the money to pay for the cost of severence and redundancies. In the ports of Liverpool and London those costs amounted to £360 million. However, previously people were more willing to accept unemployment and substantial redundancy pay when there was alternative employment available. That is not the case today. Therefore, there is a national reluctance on the part of people employed in the docks to take a risk—if I may use that term—and place


their employment in jeopardy. A national scheme that underwrites the right to work and ensures some continuity of employment is obviously a major consideration when the trade unions consider the Bill and the proposals of P and O.
The recent decision by the Government to increase the assistance for severence and redundancy costs by £140 million suggests that they are convinced that more job losses are necessary. To what extent are the promoters of the Bill aware of the inevitable job losses that will occur despite the undertakings that some have given as to possible job creation? The promoters talk on the one hand of job creation, but on the other they plan to increase the amount of money available for redundancy. Some double talk appears to be taking place.
The use of the additional £140 million facility will include the removal of a debt of £45·5 million outstanding from the National Dock Labour Board that arose from previous severance costs in ports other than London and Liverpool. Part of the money will also be used for future severance costs in all ports until 31 March 1988 on a reducing scale. That started on 31 October 1985 at 100 per cent. of costs; it reduced to 75 per cent. from 31 March 1986, and has gone down to 50 per cent. for the final period until 31 March next year.
Should any employer decide to deregister during the two and a half year period, the whole of the cost of severing his registered workers will be met by the Government. Therefore, the Government are obviously bending over backwards to ensure that moneys are available. It seems to me that the Government are working to an unofficial policy of running down certain ports, making redundancies and even extending the tentacles of those port authorities that wish to operate outside the national dock scheme and thereby undermine the conditions of employment that have been built up over the years.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no precedent in Britain for removing a small part of a dock area from that covered by the dock workers employment scheme when the remainder of that area continues to employ registered dock workers? If the Bill becomes law we will create a precedent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that this is an appalling precedent. So that the public clearly understand what is happening, let me explain that effectively we have here two separate organisations — one operating a national scheme, with laid down minimum standards of wages and conditions, and another authority, next door, operating what the unions would describe as a "lesser scheme". The Government are backing the organisation that runs the lesser scheme by allowing it to spread its tentacles into the area where better wages and conditions exist. That undermines the better employer.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We must be careful about the use of the term "better employer". I understand that Ipswich docks have been owned by P and O for some time. Felixstowe docks are now owned by P and O as a result of its acquisitor of European Ferries. I understand that the P and O management is very satisfied with the way in which the Ipswich docks are managed. That is a scheme port and it is extremely efficient. I understand that the

management was horrified when it went to Felixstowe dock and discovered the way in which it had been managed. The management were not impressed with it. Felixstowe is both outside the scheme and, I understand from P and O, is not very impressively managed either.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When I talk about a better employer, I mean irrespective of ownership. The relationship with the trade union is underpinned by the national scheme, and that makes that port a better employer. If, as my hon. Friend says, P and O has expressed surprise at the distinction that exists, one must hope that if at some stage in the next century, the Bill is passed, P and O will seek to redress the imbalances that currently exist.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: P and O says that operations are better at Ipswich than at Felixstowe. It amazes me that we did not get a swift intervention from Conservative Members to say that they will accept the extension of the dock labour scheme to this port because it appears that it has brought about better management practices at Ipswich than at Felixstowe where the scheme does not apply.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is correct and I understand his point. Paragraph (8) of the preamble to the Bill says:
It is expedient that the Dock Workers Employment Scheme 1967 should cease to relate to any part of the limits of the dock being the limits as previously defined and as further extended and redefined as aforesaid".
I understand my hon. Friend to say that P and O should have sought to amend that paragraph. If it believes that what is happening in Ipswich is so good, why has it not sought to delete that and perhaps to insert a clause guaranteeing the future of the dock workers employment scheme for the whole of the dockyard operations that it intends to manage in the coming year?

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, strangely enough, the position might well he the reverse of maintaining good management at Ipswich, because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report for 1986 says, on page 44, at paragraph 764, that European Ferries reported that it would be possible for P and O services from Ipswich to be moved to Felixstowe. That would remove the traffic from that port down to Felixstowe, so perhaps P and O does not care about the dock workers scheme at Ipswich, but will simply remove the traffic from that port.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That will obviously be a problem, because if, in effect, one company has a monopoly in that part of the country it will be able to manipulate traffic to the port that best suits it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend is a little out of touch with the way in which the proceedings work. At the stage at which European Ferries was making great claims for the possibility of moving trade from Ipswich to Felixstowe, it was making its own representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission about why the merger should go ahead. I think that it was only subsequently, when P and O took over the management, that it realised that all was not quite as well at Felixstowe as it might have been. Perhaps the possibility of a takeover and a move from Ipswich receded a little at that point. Obviously, that fear still exists for the people of Ipswich.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It seems to be a case of horses for courses. The case that one makes seems to depend on the stage that one has reached in representations. My hon. Friend is obviously very knowledgeable in these matters, but it might well be that P and O has simply sought to change its tune because of the different conditions and the different groups that it has to convince. Whatever the case, we oppose the Bill, and I am sure that during the course of the debate we will be able further to advance and marshal all our other arguments.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman because I admire the diligence with which he addresses these matters. We are dealing here with a portion of the estuary which at the moment has no registered or unregistered dock workers. It is simply mud flats. No work goes on there now. The question is what would happen if the Bill were to be given passage. Therefore, there is no debate about the present functioning of either port.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that in its expansion of the Orwell estuary the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has to acquire new legal and operational limits. This will take it over into the area of jurisdiction of the Ipswich port authority.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It has been revoked.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that it has been revoked. Perhaps he might like to explain that, because if that is the case I could cut 10 or 15 minutes from my speech. I should not like to delay proceedings on the Bill if the hon. Gentleman can expedite the matter. I am advised that this expansion will take a chunk out of the Ipswich port authority. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. If that is not correct, perhaps the matter could be clarified.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend should be aware that there are two points about the dock labour scheme. There is the actual dock area where people will be loading and unloading, and there is the area that surrounds it, where there are controls and regulations about warehousing and other activities that go with that. It is true that at the moment in the area between the Ipswich port authority boundary and the Felixstowe port authority boundary which the Bill will change, nobody is unloading ships. That is because, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, it is mud flats. A change in those boundaries has implications even at the present time.

Mr. Campell-Savours: All these matters are very confusing, but I shall try my best to follow the case put by my hon. Friend. He is obviously very knowledgeable in these matters, as is my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who, I am told intends to speak at great length because he has a complicated argument to advance and many points to marshal. I see that he has a list of ports, and I presume that he will explain to us the position in those ports in the event of the Bill proceeding. We ought to know what effect there will be on all the registered and unregistered ports in the event of the Bill proceeding.
Until 1980 British container ports were in a reasonably strong position, especially those on the south and east coasts. Deep-sea container trades were still growing, freight rates were high, the world economy was strong and

container berths were available to match shipping requirements. Since 1980 the situation has changed for both shipowner and terminal operator. There is over-capacity in container terminals in the United Kingdom, the world recession has deepened, the growth of container operations has slowed and freight rates have fallen. Liner service competition has increased. This has resulted in customers having less money to spend on container terminal services, and because of over-capacity have established them to force down the price that they are prepared to pay. That situation will become worse in a short space of time as more and more of those ports come on stream and provide those facilities.
I ask the Minister whether, when all this is happening, and when jobs are being lost in the industry, it is right for a promoter to promote a Bill that exacerbates the position of trade union members who are employees of those companies, because those employees know that if the facts that I have relayed to the House are true, there must be accelerating redundancy to meet the increasing shortfall in traffic available in those areas.
London, Southampton and Felixstowe will have approximately 2 million TEUs annual capacity available, against a requirement of some 1,200,000 TEUs to be handled. I confess that I do not know what TEUs are. I should like the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich to tell me. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and she could not tell me. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East knows, but he would not tell me. He said that I had to find out by other means. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) knows, or he would have turned around and silently whispered it to me. I need to know what TEUs are, but nobody seems to wish to intervene to tell me.
We should add to this situation additional projected development of container handling facilities. This capacity increases to 2,200,000 TEUs by 1990. This does not take into account additional surplus capacity on the west coast, in Liverpool, Bristol and a number of other ports. There is also a need to consider the adverse effects on United Kingdom ports of the development of round-the-world container services and the resulting growth transhipment between continental ports and smaller east and south coast United Kingdom ports.
I know that unemployment is increasing in all parts of the country, even in some of those small ports in the south. I am told that unemployment is increasing in some Medway towns. Do not Ramsgate, Chatham and Rochester and, if I am not mistaken, Dover have unemployment problems? We do not have Labour Members representing those ports, but they deserve them, because unemployment is rising, and it may be that in some of those towns and communities the issue of unemployment is not being raised as regularly as it should be in the House by their respective Members of Parliament. Unemployment in those ports is rising.
A number of those coastal towns are developing port authorities and are most concerned about the expansion of other ports in the United Kingdom and, in particular, this port development. Again the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds shakes his head. Perhaps on this occasion he will rise to his feet and explain what concerns have been expressed to him and his hon. Friends in the Medway towns. While I understand that they are not members of the national scheme, they equally believe that they should


be given the opportunity of developing their port facilities, and they obviously feel threatened when those large operators move in, buy up, convert, transform and provide capacity additional to that which is already available within the United Kingdom, and when those port authorities take action that does not help the smaller ports in the development of the facilities in which local authorities often invest as part of local job creation measures.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As most of the smaller ports to which the hon. Gentleman is referring do not have the dock labour scheme, is he supporting them, or not supporting them?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who is'a fount of knowledge on these matters, tells me that a number of the Medway ports are in the national scheme. If they are in the scheme, I presume that they must be included in the list. I have refrained from reading into the record the list that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley refused to read into the record. It is a document that my hon. Friend obtained from the Library, so it must be authentic. It lists all those ports where the scheme operates.
The list includes an area called Medway and Swale. Do I presume that that is the area that we are referring to here? If so, perhaps it should be drawn to the attention of the House that the area of the Conservators of the River Medway. the area of the Commissioners of Faversham Navigation, the area of the Conservators of Milton Creek, the harbour area of the Queenborough Corporation and a place called Whitstable—I presume that they are all in the same area—are all areas where the 1967 dock work employment scheme operates. We therefor have four authorities, all in Conservative constituencies, all belonging to a national scheme, and all of which must be concerned about the prospect—the Minister is nodding, I presume in agreement with what I am saying—of the promoters getting their Bill.

Mr. David Mitchell: Just so that the hon. Gentleman should not misread anything into the record, I was choking, not nodding.

Mr. C'ampbell-Savours: I do not know whether the Minister was choking because of some physical disability, or because of my contribution. He might let us know.
As I look down the list of ports, I conclude that there must be a number of other ports that are concerned about those matters. I wonder what the ports of Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have to say about the development. The Minister said that there were not many ports in the right part of the United Kingdom— or at least that is what I understood he said when he intervened. He referred to the geographic location of ports that could compete with Rotterdam and ports across the Channel. I presume that the ports of Hull, Goole, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, King's Lynn, Boston and Wisbech also compete with ports across the Channel. I also assume that the port of Great Yarmouth, which is a dock work employment scheme 1967 registered port, has an interest in these matters. I cannot believe that they are falling over themselves in the hope that the development will take place.
I must say to those authorities that when we are discussing these matters, perhaps in 1988, 1989, 1990,

1991, 1992, 1993 and hopefully 1994 and 1995, they might think it appropriate to write to us to tell us what they feel about the development of a port outside the dock work employment scheme that may damage their interests.
I can say to all those port authorities that if they send their comments to me and my hon. Friends we will read them into the record, because that is where they should be. People should be given the opportunity of having their objections read into the record, so that the House can be informed of their concerns. If the trade union branches in those ports wish to write to us, we could arrange for their submissions to be read into the record on the back of a number of amendments that we would wish to table during future proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to emphasise something that my hon. Friend said earlier about the Wash ports — Boston, King's Lynn and Wisbech. I know about these ports because I chaired the Committee dealing with the Fosdyke Bridge Act. Fosdyke was a small harbour seeking powers to take over certain jurisdiction aspects from Boston harbour. Boston harbour had to compete with, and was concerned about, continental ports.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It seems to me that a number of hon. Members could have been in the Chamber tonight to represent their respective port interests, but they have simply not turned up—I do not understand why. This list of ports reads like a list from the Official Report of Members voting in a Division. A whole host of constituencies are not being represented in the debate.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) who is a Scottish Whip representing an English constituency, and who has been seconded to look after this Bill, should be despatched to the Tea Room, the Bars and the Restaurants of the House to ask hon. Members to come to the Chamber to speak about these areas, all of which have the dock work employment scheme. This amendment is about the operation of that scheme in Ipswich and about the fact that if the Bill were to succeed—somewhere in the next decade — it would undermine wages and conditions in the ports that I have identified.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not aware that in Fylde we do not have a port.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about Fleetwood?

Mr. Jack: That is in the Wyre constituency. If the hon. Gentleman had had the opportunity, as I have, to visit some of the smaller ports that he has listed, he would have noticed that the tonnage and the type of shipping that goes into those ports would not be affected adversely by the type of shipping that would benefit from the development in Felixstowe. In many cases the small ports accommodate ships of less than 1,000 tonnes gross registered tonnage and the types of goods that they carry would benefit from the expansion of the port and improved communications at Felixstowe. They could use the smaller ships already coming into their ports to bring raw materials or ship goods out. The two are complimentary. Felixstowe would not take the business of the smaller ports.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My geography is not perfect, but, as I understand it, the port of Fleetwood is near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It may be within it.

Mr. Jack: Fleetwood, as I have already said, is in the Wyre constituency. Fleetwood's principal activities are roll-on/roll-off shipping across the Irish sea and fishing, and shipping would not be directly affected by the development set out in the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now we are getting into complicated matters. Roll-on/roll-off is a very interesting term. It often includes the use of arctic tractor units, where containers are placed on trailers to lorries. It is where—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very interesting explanation, but I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will now get back to the amendments. We have had a lot of fun so far.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: These are important matters, because Fleetwood is on the list of ports with a dock work employment scheme and it would be affected by the development of Felixstowe. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is arguing that Fleetwood would not be adversely affected. He argues that it would be to its advantage to see the development of the Felixstowe harbour. I put it to him that the roll-on/roll-off traffic coming into his port might be traffic diverted from the port of Felixstowe. However, whereas it came in as roll-on/rolloff to Fleetwood, it might come in as straight container traffic to Felixstowe.

Mr. Jack: The development of efficient forms of transport to Europe via the port of Felixstowe is of particular benefit to the north-west, in which the Wyre constituency is located. Many of our industries have sound businesses exporting to Europe, and efficient transport via the port of Felixstowe—not by a long, circuitous route from Fleetwood, which would add to the cost and make those goods uncompetitive—would be of positive benefit to the many good things happening in the north of England.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am finding it hard to follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it extremely hard to follow this argument. We should now get back to the arguments on the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The best interests of the dock labour scheme may well be served by being able to carry out dock activities and take advantage of the Channel tunnel, if we ever have it. It would be far more in the interests of the dockers at Fleetwood to pack containers to be taken by rail all the way to Europe than to send them to a port such as Felixstowe. The problem is that the Felixstowe development will destroy a valuable natural habitat to develop a port area when, at the Government's insistence, all the containers can be sent by rail, thus enhancing the labour scheme in the ports if they stick with containers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As usual, my hon. Friend brings the richness of his knowledge to our proceedings. He takes me into an area that is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend referred to a Channel port. I have always been a vigorous supporter of the Channel tunnel. Indeed, I have always said that I should like an eight-lane motorway to be built across the Channel to facilitate the fastest access to the European Community.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend goes too far.

9 pm

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend says that I go too far, but the point is that in the event that we want a viable Channel crossing, we must ensure that the maximum amount of traffic is available to use it. I should have thought that the development of a port in this way must affect to some extent the amount of traffic that will be available to go through the Channel tunnel.
The constituents of the hon. Member for Fylde would be far better served by a viable Channel tunnel, or whatever arrangement is finally made, whereby his producers have rapid access to the European Community, than by the development of the port of Felixstowe, which would provide for the shipment of goods abroad by a much slower route. It would be a more expensive arrangement. There will come a time when much of the traffic will go through a Channel port, and costs will fall when the tunnel is paid for.

Mrs. Clwyd: Given the substantial financial investment that the Government have made in reducing capacity at a time of excess, is it not lunacy to create additional capacity?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my hon. Friend was listening to what I said at several stages of my speech. That is precisely my case. Today there is an underutilisation of capacity, yet the Government support the principle of increasing capacity. They are using a geographical argument, that the present capacity is in the wrong part of the United Kingdom. The Minister is obviously concerned about the Channel tunnel. He is pressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) all the time. The latter is a bitter opponent of the Channel link, yet the Minister wants the development to take place as soon as possible. I should have thought that he would take that into account when setting out ports policy for the United Kingdom.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the issue before the House is whether the dock labour scheme shall or shall not apply to an area of the estuary within an imaginary line drawn from Shotley Spit buoy and Fagborough cliff to Stoke bridge, I wonder whether you think that we are going just a little wide.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I might he the best judge of that, thank you very much.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He said that the Government seemed to support the Bill and were doing so in the interests of increasing capacity. Surely there is a much more insidious political reason behind the Government's fervent support of the Bill and the distinguished attention of the Minister this evening, when I am sure he has other more intriguing things to do. He is certainly dressed for more intriguing activitives than coming to the debate. Surely the more insidious objective for the Government is to use the Bill as a political vehicle for rolling back the dock labour scheme. That might be the reason why the Government support the Bill so strongly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is precisely the view expressed by the Transport and General Workers Union, which wrote to hon. Members expressing concern about the Bill. It was the union that said:
Whereas Ipswich is a Scheme Port, Felixstowe is not. The expansion, therefore, is into an established area of registered dock work. It means, in a nutshell, that the Bill is the political vehicle for rolling hack the Scheme without negotiation. It is the first time that the Scheme has been breached unilaterally like this. It sets a bad precedent.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Rubbish.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon Gentleman says "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. He is saying that this is not a political vehicle for rolling back the dock work employment scheme without negotiation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can point to the nature of the negotiations that took place with the trade unions in Felixtowe which leads him to believe that they support the rolling back of the scheme in the way that it is being rolled back. Once again the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, yet he knows that that is true. The TGWU nationally is concerned, just as the TGWU in Ipswich is concerned, and it has written to us to express its concern.
My former hon. Friend, Mr. Ken Weetch, is here today. He has come to Parliament to set out his views. He feels so angry about these matters, and so angered by the fact that the company has used private Bill procedure in the way that it has, that he has made the journey to brief me and my hon. Friends on these matters and to ask us to vote and speak in favour of amendments and to do whatever we can to undermine the Bill's passage where it adversely affects his former constituents, and, indeed, his constituents, as they will be after the next general election.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley commenced her elegant contribution, she referred to her sponsorship by the TGWU. I also have a connection with the TGWU. I am a member of that union. I am a member of the branch in my constituency where buses are made. TGWU people in ports in different parts of the United Kingdom feel angered by these matters. They have, in many areas, written to hon. Members asking us to meddle with the proceedings this evening, or perhaps others might say to help the Bill on its way. although I do not know where to.
I am not sponsored by that union so I have no financial interest to declare to the House. I simply declare that I am a member.

Mr. Cryer: I have an interest to declare in that I am a member of the TGWU. Since this is a Bill to empower the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to construct works, I should also declare an interest in the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I have five £10 shares. They have never paid a dividend and, so far as I know, there will be no traffic from that railway to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and never has been.

Mr. Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend so early in his peroration but is not that a stark warning of the dangers of dabbling in capitalism?

Mr. Cryer: Let me make it clear for the record that the Keighley and Worth Valley railway is a co-operative effort and has never paid a dividend because it is run largely by volunteers who want to see the railway succeed and have no intention of lining their pockets— unlike, I suspect, the people who are promoting the Bill.
The amendments have been put forward in a constructive way. As a recent re-entrant to Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Retread."] I was trying to choose a more elegant word than retread.
I was about to thank my hon. Friends for initiating this debate because, as a recent re-entrant to Parliament, I was not privy to the previous arguments about the Bill. I am grateful to them for bringing to my attention the opportunity for taking part in a Bill which, I suspect, but for their attention, would have gone through on the nod, with the promoter simply moving each clause as necessary. That is a bad way of dealing with anything in Parliament.
I should like to reiterate what some of my hon. Friends have said about this poor and shabby method of attempting to remove the dock labour scheme from a section of an area that is to be a port and, therefore, from a port. If we are to examine our entire port system, we should note that we cannot do so through the promotion of a private Bill.
The problem gets still worse. As I said at the beginning of the debate, there is a Standing Order that allows private but not public Bills to be carried on from one Session of Parliament to the next. However, this is a different Parliament from the one that entered into discussions on this Bill. All public Bills fall with the old Parliament, and no old Parliament can commit successor Parliaments, except in this respect. We are committed to a Bill that seeks to remove the provisions of the dock work labour scheme. That is a revolting prospect and the method by which that is sought is revolting also.
The scheme provides for negotiated protection against redundancies. I am sure that those hon. Members who support the Bill would like negotiated protection against redundancy when elections come round. I am sure that those Conservative Members would like other provisions of the dock work labour scheme, such as a minimum wage. After all, the minimum wage that they have sought is £22,000 per year, which is rather more than the dock workers receive. There have been some criticisms from Conservative Members that such a dock work labour scheme might provide some type of guarantee to which they would be opposed. However, they want to guarantee that their salaries are available every month. Why should that not apply to the employees of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company?
Hon. Members who support this amendment seek nothing more than that similar standards should apply to dock workers as apply to Members of Parliament—not the same level of salary but simply that that salary should be paid regularly. It would be undignified for hon. Members if, for example, the Whips said to them, "There is a Standing Committee upstairs at 10.30 next Tuesday. Those who get there first will be paid, but those who cannot make it up the steps, those who have a bit of a hangover, those who are idle, those who are crowded out because they cannot get in, those who are simply pushed aside, those who are too late or who cannot get there for whatever reason will not be paid." If that happened, I am sure that Members of Parliament would say, "That is a terrible system. It is awful and unfair."

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Cryer: When I have finished my sentence I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend. Hon. Members would be right to oppose such a system.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. His line of argument is most interesting. Prior to the dock labour scheme, the situation was much worse. It would not simply be a question of who got there first but, as the port employers used to do, the question then would be to decide of the people who got there, which individuals would get a job. Can my hon. Friend imagine a situation where, if he managed to get upstairs to the Committee corridor, the Whip who was standing there would decide that that hon. Member could serve on the Committee, but that another hon. Member could not? Although I have just got into the Whips Office and would always prefer my hon. Friend, I have a sneaking suspicion that there would be a few others who would feel that his face did not fit.

Mr. Cryer: I was just coming to the question of patronage. There is a certain healthy disregard for it in the House, although Conservative Members seem prepared to ask plenty of questions with great frequency and fervour in the hope of preferment.
Employers decide whom they will select. Those who arrived for jobs first, perhaps because they did not have an injury caused by manual cargo handling or perhaps because they could run more swiftly than the others, then faced the difficulty that if they spoke out against their employer, he would not choose them next time. If their face did not fit, they were not chosen. Everyone will accept that that is a degrading, inhumane and thoroughly objectionable system for those who are earning their livelihood. That is the system which Conservative Members are seeking to restore by supporting these amendments.
The dock work labour scheme was established with the specific aim of ending a system of casual hiring and firing which for years disgraced our docks. Employers felt it to be advantageous. If the men tried to form a union, the shop steward and members of that union would not be hired. If they complained of dirty toilets on the docks, they were not wanted. Anyone who raised any sort of criticism was not hired the next time hiring and firing came round, and that was every day of the week. Any criticism that was raised could be used as a pretext for hiring and firing because employers had absolute power over their workers. Therefore, it is important to adduce these arguments and show the difference between the two sides of the Chamber.
Conservative Members wish to return to the principles of the 19th and early 20th century. Naturally, they will not say so. They say, "Things at Felixstowe are good and we treat our people with care and dignity." They treat workers with care and dignity to such an extent that the promoter cannot guarantee the jobs of any of those who work at Felixstowe or guarantee that this development will not result in redundancies. He has not even stood up and said, "I cannot give a guarantee, but I shall fight if there are any proposals for redundancies." He would not lift a finger if there were redundancies. He might issue a press release saying that the redundancies were terrible, but he would not lift a finger, nor, I suspect, would any other Conservative Members. Their talk of concern is hypocritical. They are in the business of subjugating ordinary working men and women.

Mr. William Cash: Rubbish.

Mr. Cryer: Earlier in the debate hon. Members said that there was growth in the economy and more traffic

through the ports. Yet the Government who make these boasts have not achieved the output levels that they inherited in 1979. That is why more factories have been destroyed than were destroyed by Hitler and why in every city we have deserts where people once worked. The Government are conniving in this. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment stood at the Dispatch Box and in his usual sneering manner said,
Local authorities must cut back.
That means putting people on the dole. The dock work labour scheme—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I enjoy the word "back". I might remind the hon. Gentleman that we should now move back to the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: There are no spots on his back.

Mr. Cryer: I have a good skin, too.
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was coming back to the dock work labour scheme. It is just that I was ensnared by the intervention of an hon. Member who drifted in and aroused my ire. I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not be ensnared again. I am concerned about the dock work labour scheme; I have already said that it provides negotiated protection against redundancies — that is reasonable — and a minimum wage. Indeed, the House voted for a minimum wage only last Tuesday. The scheme provides a guaranteed wage; and I have elaborated on the position of casual hiring and firing. One of the consequences of casual hiring and firing that besmirched our dock industry until 1967 was the fact that those people who were not hired were not paid. So the men who went to the hiring went back home to tell their wives and children that they did not have any money that day because they could not get work. I do not know what the hon. Gentlemen who are opposing the amendments think about that, but I believe that it is a humiliating and degrading thing for any man or woman to be in the position of having to go back and tell his or her family that they have been rejected—not for any good reason, but by the arbitrary fiat of an employer using a system that gave the power of absolute patronage, terror or humiliation over workers.
The dock work labour scheme was not given—it was argued and fought for by workers who wanted a better passage through life on this planet than suffering the daily humiliation of having to be hired and fired and facing the employers' arbitrary decisions. That was why they organised. Tom Mann, who will be turning in his grave at the fact that his great-grandson is a Conservative Member of Parliament, and who was a man of principle and generosity, fought—others like him did, too—to create the dock work labour scheme, which was his crowning achievement and that of all those workers. That is why the amendments are so important and why the dock work labour scheme should be retained. It should be retained so that employers and workers are registered, and that is important, too.
One of our biggest difficulties in the workplace is the loss of hours, not through strike action—an idea much promoted by the Government— but through industrial injury. In any average year between four and 10 times more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. One might have thought, therefore, that the Government would have been concerned to promote legislation to reduce industrial injury, but they have


promoted only legislation against trade unions. There is much greater possibility that registered employers and dock workers will be properly trained in manual handling, because much of their work involves it. Figures vary, but the Back Pain Association suggests that 15 million people are affected by back injuries each year—I put down some questions about that subject for answer tomorrow. If employers are registered, they and workers can be required to provide training—workers need training, too — and there is an obligation on workers in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to carry out their duties safely as far as is reasonably practicable.
Casual employees are much more likely to suffer industrial injury than those in a properly organised scheme. That can be seen in many industries, but I shall name only one to demonstrate the importance of the dock work labour scheme. Even this Government have tried to register the people who dismantle asbestos buildings. They have not done this terribly well, but they have produced a list, although virtually everyone can get on it. Because asbestos is accepted as a dangerous substance, the Government have tried to have a registration scheme, just like the dock work labour scheme.
Workers can be dismissed only with the approval of the dock labour hoard, and that is reasonable. We remember the old image of the 19th century capitalist walking into a factory and saying, "That half is sacked today." Some Tory Members might like that romantic image of the hire-and-fire entrepreneur who presses ahead irrespective of the damage he is doing to human beings, but we have eroded that idea over the years. We accept that the consideration that must be given to people is at least as great as that given to, for example, the installation of new machinery. It is absurd that the consideration of the installation of new machinery should be put on a level with the all-important consideration of humanity.
The provision for dismissal with the dock labour board's approval is a vital safeguard to prevent arbitrary dismissal on a pretext because of a grievance caused by a personality difference, which, as we know, does happen. The practice of requiring the dock labour board's approval of dismissals is an important safeguard which should be instituted for every employment system. That provision is made in legislation in France—not outrageously Left-wing France but Right-wing France.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is giving us good examples of how the dock labour scheme benefits the work force, but he must give the other dimension. Progressive employers—some still operate in the 80 scheme docks—can see advantages from the dock labour scheme. My hon. Friend should put that dimension in his argument as well.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that fact. There are generous and idealistic employers who genuinely seek to work with people, as opposed to those who continually seek confrontation. However well-intentioned my hon. Friend is, the point is that we are confronted with people who are deeply opposed to the dock work labour scheme. It may come as a shock to my hon. Friend, but they want these amendments, which have been put forward with care and consideration by my hon. Friends, to be defeated. I have tried to argue about how rational people could oppose the dock work labour scheme.

Mr. Tony Banks: I again point out that there are a number of dock employers in other parts of the country who are as deeply opposed to the Bill's provisions as my union, the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I only wish that those employers would bring their influence to bear on hon. Members, so that the entrenched vicious dogma which is so often exhibited by the Conservatives is changed. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that there are in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches some people who would say privately, "The dock work labour scheme has many good points." They know that there is no place for them in the Government. They know that they will receive only sneers and hard stares, perhaps vilification and abuse, from the hard Right which now swamps the parliamentary Conservative party.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend was appealing to people in various parts of the country. I see that the House now has the benefit of the added expertise of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who is a former parliamentary agent. He used to promote Bills such as tis and has inside knowledge of these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think we should go down that road this evening.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping me on the straight and narrow.
I was discussing the fact that dismissals could be made only with the approval of the dock labour board. That is a very important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) drew my attention to the fact that there are employers — indeed, I know employers — who are sympathetic to the scheme and who want their workers to enjoy decent terms and conditions of employment. They are employers with a conscience. It is a pity that some of them have not moved into the Conservative party in recent years; I rather suspect that they have moved out.
Under the provisions of the dock labour scheme, redundancy terms are provided under a levy system. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) introduced the argument, I compared the docks with the steel industry, and I should like to elaborate that point because it is important. Conservative Members cannot oppose the dock labour scheme on principle, because the redundancy terms that apply to it are almost precisely the same as those applied under the European Coal and Steel Community, which was established by the treaty of Paris of 1955. It has now been taken over by the EEC and is administered by the Commission. That scheme allows for a levy on steel enterprises, and they pay for redundancies. Unfortunately, as a result of Conservative policies, hundreds of thousands of steel workers have been made redundant. They have been cushioned, although not greatly, by the scheme because it has provided for an organised reduction.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, the number of registered dock work employees has fallen from 82,000 in 1951 to 12,438 in 1984. Those who oppose the amendments cannot argue that the dock workers have resisted redundancies. Alas, such schemes have sometimes promoted planned reductions of manpower, although I


am sure that in this case it is right. Since the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, factories have been closed and workers have not resisted the closures because of the redundancy payment terms.
I do not like that state of affairs. Workers should have the opportunity to oppose closures by sit-ins, strikes, demonstrations and petitions. They should be able to use all the democratic 'means open to them. Redundancy provision sometimes discourages that because people are prepared to accept redundancy. I should have thought that that argument would appeal to the Tory party as it is so keen on redundancies—we have had 2 million in the manufacturing industry, mostly in the north, since 1979. Conservative Members must bless the day when redundancy schemes came along to encourage workers to accept redundancy. Why do they not accept the dock work labour scheme redundancy provisions, paralleled as they are by the European Coal and Steel Community redundancy scheme that is promoted by the Common Market, which has so many adherents on the Government Benches?
Conservative Members used to pour forth a great deal of praise for the European Economic Community. I notice, however, that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) does not enter the Chamber too often these days to defend the system. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister said only this afternoon that we shall be sticking to the EEC, even though there does not seem much good reason for so doing. She said that we are supporting it, and among the provisions that we shall be supporting are the European Coal and Steel Community redundancy terms under the levy system. Conservative Members should have seen the parallel.
I suggest that if the Prime Minister discovers that Conservative Members voted against the amendment, when there is a parallel policy that she supports, they might find that they have not done their careers any good. One or two new Conservative Members have raised a few points of interest in the debate in response to the amendment, and other Conservative Members have been among them—I suspect that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is one — saying, "Keep your mouth shut, we want the discussion on the amendment to be concluded." The hon. Gentleman might have said it rather more elegantly than that, but I do not think so.
The newly elected Conservative Members have obeyed that injunction and they will oppose the dock work labour scheme provisions. These are promising lads who have come down from Ipswich and Stafford, for example. Their careers will go up in smoke because of the Prime Minister's patronage. It is an arbitrary patronage for there is no appeal against it. It is the sort of patronage that was used by employers before the scheme came into operation. I suspect that it is a patronage that they do not like too much because they have no appeal. One blink of that hard, gimlet eye and they have had it. There is no appeal, and no amount of grovelling will get them back in the pecking order. Surely they should support a dock work labour scheme that prevents that sort of patronage being suffered by ordinary working men.
Under the levy system, given the parallel that I have been discussing, steel enterprises pay a levy. What about those who do not pay a levy? They cannot provide the

redundancy terms that their workers would like to cushion them against redundancy. Therefore, the workers in the non-scheme sectors of the steel industry have a worse deal than others as the workers in the non-scheme sector of the ports industry have a worse deal on redundancy than those in scheme sectors. There is at least a worse deal potentially.
Even if there is not a worse deal in the non-scheme sectors, it is essential that there is a scheme to provide a basis of comparison. Some employers who are not in the scheme may say that they do not want to be in it because they provide better terms and conditions. Better than what? They claim that their terms and conditions are better than those that apply under the scheme. If the scheme is taken away, working conditions will be driven down because there will be no basis of comparison.
It is essential that we should retain the dock work labour scheme. As my hon. Friends have said on several occasions, we do not view the clause as a straightforward provision in a private Bill that is promoted by one corporate body. We see it as a means of creating a precedent. There are Conservative Members who will say, "There is a major port that is outside the scheme. We shall use it as a precdent for driving the dock work labour scheme out of existence in the United Kingdom." There will be those who claim that that is an exaggerated claim, but I point to the amount of trade union legislation that the Government have pushed through that can be described only as vindictive and anti-trade union.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: You ain't seen nothing yet.

Mr. Cryer: I hear a Conservative Member say from a recumbent position, "You ain't seen nothing yet." Could we have a more vicious attack on organised men and women? If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) wishes to intervene in the debate, he is entirely welcome. He is a wet in the Tory ranks. What does the hard Right think of that?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has received considerable interest from his constituents about who owns the land in the development?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has corrected me. As a re-entrant to Parliament, I am grateful for his intervention. Naturally, since a lot of the debate took place while I was resting, as they say—

Mr. Tony Banks: Is that what they do in the European Parliament?

Mr. Cryer: Yes.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) represents the wet docks, and I represent the dry docks.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the hon. Member for Cambridge, when he sees a dock labour scheme and wishes to oppose it and, by analogy, wishes to eradicate it, along with the trade union rights that have been built up over the years, represents the moderate wing of the Conservative party. Other Conservative Members wish to see such eradication with verve and drive.
Some hon. Members have said that such a tiny section of a private Bill will not be used as an example to attract


a dock work labour scheme. The comments that have been made tonight entirely justify the Opposition's claim that it will be used as a precedent.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am following my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. He has raised many excellent points. As he described himself as someone who has re-entered the House, is he aware that the force of conviction on the Opposition side of the House in opposing the Bill is such that, according to my investigations, the House has spent more time debating this private Bill than any other in the past 20 years? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the message must be clear to the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Many hours were spent in debate when I was not in the House. To bring the Bill back at this stage seems to be a fruitless use of parliamentary time. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have raised that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is desperate to make a contribution. He has many important points to bring to bear on the measure.
The Bill is being promoted—along with the wretched business of removing the dock work labour scheme—to extend dock capacity. Yet we know full well that there is an excess of capacity. We can only turn to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission 1986 report, which states that the promoters of the Bill
told us that although European Ferries might have monopoly rights at the ports it owned, it had no monopoly of ports generally. It told us that there was a surplus of ro/ro terminal capacity in the United Kingdom at both North sea and Irish sea ports, as there was also in respect of lo/lo capacity
With that evidence that is presented to Parliament, Government Members put forward a Bill tonight that is designed to wreck the provisions that have been built up over many years. Unfortunately, because of time limitations, brought about by many interventions from the Government Benches. I cannot go into the details of excess capacity any further. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East is anxious to make a contribution. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker — I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for not giving you credit for wearing your wig so gracefully. I therefore conclude my remarks and urge my hon. Friends to carry on the argument against such a wretched Bill and to support the useful amendments.

Mr. Snape: Unlike most previous Opposition speakers in the debate, I do not declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, and over the years my union and the TGWU have not always seen eye to eye about transport matters. But after listening to every word of the debate, I am thoroughly convinced by the reasonable and succinct way in which the case for the amendment has been made, and it would only be proper for the official Opposition to support it, unless the Minister of State can convince us —he will have to be a bit more convincing than he was in an earlier intervention—that we are wrong.
The basic proposal behind the Bill is that Felixstowe dock must be extended to cater for the expansion of container traffic. Those who are in favour of the Bill argue that it is in the local and national interest that we cater for this potential growth.

Mr. Rhodes James: That is right.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has not had the benefit of hearing every word of the debate. That was the Minister's contention. Indeed, he said that unless the Bill goes through, the growth in container traffic might be switched to Rotterdam, not to other United Kingdom ports, whether in the dock labour scheme or outside it. That other nautical character, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has just sailed in on the dawn tide, obviously agrees with the Minister. But the Government have not produced a shred of evidence to show that there has been an enormous growth overall in container traffic or. if there is this enormous growth, that the refusal to expand the facilities at Felixstowe will mean that the traffic would go to Rotterdam and the other continental ports about which the Minister warned us so luridly.
We hear similar arguments all the time in this place. When newspapers go bankrupt, we are told that there must be an immediate takeover or the foreigners will move in. When British Airways is privatised and given carte blanche to act as a predator throughout the civil aviation industry, we are told that it must be allowed to take over British Caledonian because the foreigners are knocking on the door. They never seem to ask themselves why, if the foreigners are knocking on the door, the Government neglect British industry in such a way as to make chunks of it available to those wicked foreigners about whom we are continually warned. All the evidence on containerised traffic is against the thrust of the Government's argument.
Traffic at Felixstowe has grown rapidly in recent years, but that has been the result of the takeover by Felixstowe of traffic that used to pass through other ports. Two processes of substitution have been at work in the United Kingdom ports during the past 17 years. The first is the takeover of conventional cargoes by containers. The second is the tendency towards concentration of those cargoes in the south-east, with special emphasis on Felixstowe and Southampton.
I have referred to Southampton and the impact of the proposed development on that part. Indeed, from listening to the interventions of Conservative Members, one would think that the only concern of the Labour party was with the dock work regulation scheme, or with the future prosperity and expansion of the Transport and General Workers Union.
However, it is not just Labour Members who have expressed concern about the proposed growth at Felixstowe and the terms of the Bill. As I said earlier in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I noted that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) — no notorious Left-winger—has spoken in previous debates on this matter to warn of the dangers—

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Where is he?

Mr. Snape: I do not know; it is a matter for him.
However, on 14 July 1986, the hon. Member for Test was present when this saga was rolling along. Apparently, it has rolled along for some time and will continue to do so for some time in the future. What did this great Left-winger, the protector of the Transport and General Workers Union, this would-be smasher of capitalism, have to say about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill?


During the debate, the hon. Member described himself as a moderate Right-winger. He is certainly not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.
In that debate he said:
Is it wise to create a giant container port when increased employment in that area will result in more unemployment in other areas? I do not say that Southampton cannot meet the challenge, because I believe it can. We have tremendous advantages over Felixstowe, including a wonderful geographical position and almost a double tide which remains high for some hours. We can easily work deep draft container ships and there is no delay in services at the Southampton container port.
That is despite the fact that the dockers of Southampton are members of the dock work scheme to which the Conservative party takes such enormous exception.
The hon. Member went on to say:
The overprovision of container berths will present problems, even though we in Southampton feel that we may not be able to cope with what we hope will be the future demand. We are making progress on the container side. It may be said that we are looking for the cessation of competition, but this all goes back to the Government's lack of a common ports policy.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is making an extremely telling point in giving that quote. However, is he absolutely certain that the hon. Gentleman who said that in July last year would still say that today, given the fact that he is now a Minister and that—

Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong chap.

Mr. Banks: I have the wrong fellow. My hon. Friend should have given us more of a clue.

Mr. Snape: If my hon. Friend is incapable of studying "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", he will not know the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Come on. Give us a clue.

Mr. Snape: I am not allowed to give the hon. Gentleman's name, as it would be unparliamentary, but it is the sort of thing that one climbs up from time to time. I shall leave the rest of it to the imagination of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Test, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was a member of the European Assembly for some years. Indeed, in the same speech, he said:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) appointed me the chairman of transport and regional planning for Europe." — [Official Report, 14 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 750.]
That is an impressive post, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor I in those distant days in the Whips' Office would have dreamt of aspiring to. The hon. Member for Test actually reached those dizzy heights and, having acquired the necessary experience in the European Assembly, made his pronouncements about the Bill. It is significant that a self-confessed Right-winger, someone with much experience in transport, should say what he did say about the implications of the Bill for his constituency and for the port of Southampton.
There is no great feeling in the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment that this

Bill is necessarily essential. When it was being considered in Committee a submission was made on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport. The submission was made, as these things are, by a civil servant, a Mr. P. G. Iredale, and the submission is dated 18 June 1985. Mr. Iredale made his submission in the non-emotive language so beloved of civil servants. However, in some way such language is appropriate in what is sometimes a heated Chamber and an excitable cockpit of political views.
In paragraph 8 of his submission, Mr. Iredale said:
But it is possible that there are other ports, for example Southampton, Tilbury or Harwich, which could provide a service of much the same standard without having to encroach upon any designated area in order to secure the necessary space. The Committee may wish to consider among other things whether the expansion of Felixstowe would create a unique national asset or whether if Felixstowe were not expanded services of similar standard and reliability would in practice be provided elsewhere without environmental disadvantages.
That was the opinion in 1985 of those two great Departments of State, yet the Minister of State warned us tonight about the dire consequences of rejecting the Bill. Despite being a member of the Conservative party and, therefore, following false political doctrines, the Minister of State is basically a sensible fellow. I can well understand him disagreeing with his former boss, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the Secretary of State for the Environment. Most sensible people disagree quite frequently with the right hon. Gentleman.
I can well understand that in the calm, measured cloisters of the private office of the Secretary of State Mr. Iredale sat down and thought, "How can I compose a paragraph in this document that I will put before the Committee that will illustrate the misgivings of civil servants?" Of course, civil servants always know better. He must have thought, "How can I compose a paragraph that shows civil servants' misgivings about this project without making it too apparent that I think that my Secretary of State is crackers?" I well understand that any civil servant would want to express such a sentiment in a way that would not readily he perceived as being such a blunt description of the Secretary of State for the Environment, although most hon. Members would recognise that as a not too inaccurate description. Once he has finished with the poll tax, crackers is the mildest epithet that might be aimed at him.
I must not be distracted from the amendment. The other significant impact of this Bill will be on the west coast ports. In an intervention the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that the provision of better facilities at Felixstowe would benefit, presumably, not only the port of Fleetwood but the west coast ports generally.
I must not praise the Minister of State too much, but I agree with him on one point, although we will not take every hon. Member with us on it. We both agree on the desirability of the provision of a rail-only Channel tunnel. I want to know from the Minister what impact that tunnel would have on the west coast ports. I referred to this during the course of the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 22 October.

Northern Ireland (Charities)

10 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The background to this order is as follows. The Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel, which is the charity authority for Northern Ireland, has for some time felt that certain minor changes in the existing charity legislation, most of which dates from 1964, would be desirable. Similar thoughts prompted the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to begin an examination of charity law in Northern Ireland. Having taken evidence from interested parties, the committee produced a report on this subject which was adopted by the Assembly in 1985. The report made a number of recommendations for changes in the present system of charity law. Although the Government were not able to accept all of those recommendations, it was clear that some of them would be advantageous to charities in Northern Ireland and should be put into effect.
Simultaneously, Parliament was considering and updating the law in England and Wales through the Charities Act 1985. Although certain of the provisions of the Act are appropriate only to the system of charity law in England and Wales, others could be of use in Northern Ireland. The order, therefore, stems partly from the England and Wales Charities Act 1985 and partly from recent studies in the Province to update charity legislation.
May I now take the main provisions of the order in turn? Article 3 is very closely based on the provisions of the Charities Act 1985 and relates to local charities for the relief of poverty which are at least 50 years old. It provides that the trustees of such a charity may pass a resolution altering the trusts of the charity if they are of the unanimous opinion that the existing trusts are obsolete, useless, or impracticable and that an alteration of the trusts is required in order that the charity's resources may be applied to better effect. The new trusts must not be so dissimilar to those of the original as to constitute an unjustifiable departure from the intentions of the founder of the charity, and the procedure is subject to the agreement of the Department of Finance and Personnel.
Article 4, which is also based on part of the Charities Act 1985, relates to charities with an annual income of £200 or less and provides that the trustees of such a charity may unanimously, and again with the Department's agreement, transfer their charity's assests to the trustees of another charity with similar purposes to be held and applied as the property of the latter charity.
Article 5, which again is based on the Charities Act 1985, relates to very small charities with an endowment of £25 or less and an annual income of less than £5. The Article provides that the trustees of such a charity may, if they all agree that the charity's property is too small for any useful purpose to be achieved by the expenditure of its income, pass a resolution that the charity ought to be freed of any restriction on the expenditure of its capital. They can then spend the charity's capital as well as its income for its objects and thus bring the charity to an end.
Article 6 is based in part on the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Assembly's report and is divided into

four parts. Article 6, paragraph 1, relates to section 13 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 under which the Department of Finance and Personnel may make cy pres schemes altering the purposes of a charitable trust where the original purpose has failed for any reason. The expression "cy pres" is a Norman French term and has come through usage to mean "as near as possible". The essence of the present doctrine is therefore that if a gift is given with a general charitable intent the law shall not allow the failure of a particular mode of trust to defeat the testator's intentions but will allow other charitable purposes to be substituted that are as near as possible to the testator's original intentions.
The making of a cy pres scheme is a function which belongs traditionally to the Chancery court. The object of giving this function as well to the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of very small charities was to save those charities the cost of the court proceedings which would either seriously reduce the resources of the charity or result in the virtual cessation of the charity because the trustees felt that they could not afford the expense of court proceedings. The department's power to make a cy pres scheme is at present restricted to charities whose assets do not exceed £5,000. This asset ceiling was set 22 years ago and an upward revision is long overdue. In line with the recommendation in the Northern Ireland Assembly's report, it is proposed to increase this limit to £50,000.
Article 6, paragraph 2, relates to section 14 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. It occasionally happens that when preparing his will a charitable donor so misdescribes the charity which he had in mind as to make it difficult for his personal representatives to be certain where the money should go. Section 14 authorises the personal representatives to transfer the gift to the department which, after inquiry and subject to the approval of the Attorney-General, will transfer it to whichever charity or charities appear to be appropriate, having regard to the donor's intentions. This section can be used only where the value of the gift does not exceed £250, and it is proposed to increase this limit to £2,500.
Article 6, paragraph 3, relates to section 24 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which is concerned with mixed trusts. These are trusts which fail because they include both charitable and non-charitable objects. This particular problem was highlighted in England in the 1940s in a series of court cases of which the best known is the Diplock case. In this case a testator left the residue of his estate amounting to more than £250,000 for
such charitable or benevolent purposes
in England as his trustees or executors should in their absolute discretion select. It was held, following a number of previous decisions, that because the term "benevolent" was wider than the term "charitable" the executors were entitled to apply the fund outside the sphere of charity and it was ruled that the gift was not a charitable gift. The net result was that funds already distributed had to be recovered from various charities in Sussex and sent to a distant cousin of the testator in Australia, whom he may never have known—lucky man that he was.
Section 24 of the 1964 Act provides that in such circumstances the whole of the gift is to be applied for charitable purposes in accordance with schemes made by the Chancery court or, if the value of the gift does not exceed £5,000, by the department. Under article 6, paragraph 3, this limit is increased to £50,000.
Article 6, paragraph 4, introduces a new section to the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which will allow future changes in the financial limits in sections 13, 14 and 24 to be made by order subject to affirmative resolution. This will enable the monetary limits to which I have referred to be altered more readily in response to changes in the value of money.
Article 7 relates to the way in which land and periodical payments charged on land are valued for the purposes of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. Under the existing section 32 of the 1964 Act, they are to be valued as prescribed multiples of the net annual value of the land concerned. This is not a very realistic system, since the net annual value does not respond very rapidly to changes in the actual market value of land, and it is proposed that by means of article 7 the existing section 32 will be done away with and replaced by a new section. The new section 32 will provide that the value of any land or periodical payment charged on land for the purposes of the Act shall be assessed by the commissioner of valuation.
Article 9 has been introduced to close a potential loophole in the existing charity law. At present it is possible that a charity that is a company or body corporate, and has power to alter the instruments establishing it as a body corporate, could alter those instruments in such a way as to allow property given for charitable purposes to be used for purposes that are not charitable. That situation has not yet arisen, but it would clearly be undesirable for charity property to be diverted in that way and article 9, which is based on section 30(2) of the Charities Act 1960, which applies in England and Wales, will prevent that.
Article 10 relates to a transfer of functions from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Finance and Personnel. At present the former Department, under the House to House Charitable Collections Act (Northern Ireland) 1952 has power to issue exemption orders that allow the organisers of large-scale house-to-house collections for charitable purposes to carry out those collections without having to obtain permission from each police district. That function is presently exercised by the Department of Health and Social Services as one of its miscellaneous licensing functions, but it is felt that it would be more appropriately exercised by the Department of Finance and Personnel, which has general responsibility for charity matters in Northern Ireland, and article 10 will transfer it to the latter Department.
The three schedules contain pro forma resolutions of the types that can be passed by the trustees of certain charities under articles 3, 4 and 5. It is felt to be desirable to provide them, partly to save trustees the trouble of drafting their own resolutions, and partly to ensure that the charities that take advantage of those articles pass resolutions in a consistent and legally sound form.
Those are the main points of the order. It is a difficult and complex area of law. I am sorry to have detained the House briefly to explain the provisions, but I believe that they will be of considerable interest to lawyers and trustees of a considerable number of charities in the Province. I felt it right to explain the provisions carefully to the House and to people outside. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. James Marshall: I welcome the Minister's full explanation of the details of the draft order. It has shed far more light on the order than prevailed hitherto in my mind, having attempted to read the draft order before the debate.
I should like to ask the Minister about the recommendations that the Northern Ireland Assembly proposed in 1985 on the modernisation of charity law. The Minister said that some of those recommendations had been accepted and others were rejected or not placed in the draft order. I am sure that some right hon. and hon. Members who are in the House this evening will make great play of the recommendations that are omitted. If we accept that the people who know best on these matters are the people in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give his reasons for accepting certain recommendations and including them in the draft order and rejecting others? It is of paramount importance that if the House is to overrule the views of local politicians in the Province, the reasons for doing so are made absolutely clear.
We welcome and support the order and have no intention to vote against it if a Division is called.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his lucid exposition of the order which was admirably brief. It could not have been done more concisely or speedily.
I should like to comment on two or three of the order's provisions as well as on a couple of omissions. However, I should like to say, first, as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in East Anglia, and in the light of some of the remarks yesterday after Scottish Question Time, that it is important that occasionally we have the chance to take part in debates on Northern Ireland. Nothing could symbolise our commitment to the union more effectively than for mainland Members to he able to contribute to such debates.
The Charities Act 1985, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, seems to have been the forerunner of three of the provisions in the order. That Act started life as a private Member's Bill in the other place. I had the opportunity of being responsible for its speedy passage through this House. So speedy was its passage that we did not get the chance to debate it on the Floor of the House; we merely had one Committee sitting upstairs. Just to put your mind at rest, Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking, by the device of this order, to debate those measures in any detail now. However, had the House had the chance to examine the Charities Act 1985, it might have wished to be a little bolder in its approach.
I want, in particular, to refer to articles 4 and 5 of the order which reflect clauses in the 1985 Act. Article 4 has, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, a limit on £200 a year as the income level above which charities cannot take advantage of this article, which allows them, in effect, to merge with another charity. Similarly, article 5 has the limit of a permanent endowment of not more than £25 and an annual income of not more than £5 if a charity wishes to spend its capital.
Those limits are ludicrously low. We have more than 100,000 charities in England and Wales. Unfortunately, because of the inadequacy of our registration system in England and Wales nobody knows exactly how many


charities we have, not even the body that is responsible for keeping the register. Out of more than 100,000, fewer than 50 have been able to take advantage of the 1985 Act in the two years in which it has been in force.
If we were to extrapolate those figures to Northern Ireland, where it is estimated that there are about 9,000 charities, we might assume that the benefits of articles 4 and 5 could be used by perhaps five charities over the next two years. Therefore, it is not exactly a measure which will make great progress towards reducing the number of small charities, simplifying the administration, relieving the burden on trustees and so on. I am disappointed at the inadequacy of the 1985 Act which is now reflected in the order. No risks at all would be run if those financial limits were multiplied by 25 or even 50; if charities with an income of up to £5,000 a year were allowed to merge with other charities, or if charities with an endowment of £500 or £750 or with an income of up to £150 a year were allowed to expend their capital.
No terrible disaster would follow from allowing charities of that size to take advantage of these provisions. Indeed, under the order, they would be able to take these steps only if they had the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel, just as in England and Wales charities are only able to use the measures in the 1985 Act if they have the approval of the Charity Commission.
Therefore, there is a safeguard, even if charities significantly larger than those at present covered by the order were allowed to make the changes, either to merge or to wind themselves up. No great abuse would follow from that. Indeed, in view of the Government's rejection of other much more urgently needed reforms, which would curb genuine abuses among charities, the Government's timidity in this respect is disappointing. I am sorry that Northern Ireland has not been able to be much bolder in its approach. It could have set an example which in due course might have been followed by the rest of the United Kingdom. In that sense, I am afraid that the order represents a missed opportunity.
I refer now to the omissions that concern me. My right hon. Friend has already referred to the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly, "The Modernisation of Charity Law in Northern Ireland." I am afraid that I had not previously been aware of that report, but I have had a chance to consider it this week. It seems in many ways an excellent report, containing some recommendations that, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, are incorporated in this order. I should like to comment on two of the recommendations that it contains.
First, the report rightly refers to the need for a register of charities in Northern Ireland. It seems most extraordinary that the Department of Finance and Personnel, which appears to be the Department that is primarily responsible for the supervision of charities, cannot produce a list of the charities that it supervises. So far as I can tell, only the Inland Revenue could tell us which charities currently operate in Northern Ireland—that is, if the Revenue would be willing to tell us. The Revenue normally refuses — quite rightly — to give information about any taxpayer, whether an individual, corporation or, presumably, a charity. Of course, charities are not taxpayers except in the unfortunate sense that they are liable to VAT. I do not see how anyone could claim that adequate supervision takes place if the organisations to be supervised are not known. It is most unsatisfactory.
A public interest is at stake. Every taxpayer in the United Kingdom is indirectly a compulsory financial contributor to charities by virtue of the fact that substantial amounts are lost in tax revenue because of the tax concessions that charities enjoy. I am sure that such concessions are supported by hon. Members of all parties. However, as I have said, every one of us who is a taxpayer contributes indirectly to a number of charities, some of which are in Northern Ireland. I am delighted about that, but it seems unsatisfactory that if I, as a taxpayer, in the United Kingdom wished to see a list of the charities to which I contribute in Northern Ireland, no one could supply me with that list.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend is arguing for equality of treatment as a taxpayer between this part of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. However, in his previous submission he said that there should be a difference. Will he explain why he takes a different view, being for equality of taxation on the one hand, but stating on the other hand that there should be differences? Is not that playing into the hands of those Unionists who argue that we should have similarity of treatment when it is clear that there is a good case for ensuring that we have something which, if not slightly dissimilar, is similar enough to ensure parity within the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend reads too much into my argument. In my earlier remarks, I suggested that Northern Ireland could offer an example to the rest of the United Kingdom by being a little bolder in allowing larger charities to merge or to wind up than happens at present in England and Wales. On taxation treatment, I emphasise that I am not always talking about taxpayers in England and Wales, because the same is true of taxpayers in Northern Ireland, who would not be able to obtain the information that should be available. I do not think that a point can be made on this about promoting the Union.
There is a need in my view, and in the recommendations of the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly, for a register of charities in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in England and Wales we have just received a report on an efficiency scrutiny by Sir Philip Woodfield, who held a senior office in Northern Ireland in his Civil Service career. Unfortunately, the terms of reference of his efficiency scrutiny required him only to take note of the position in Northern Ireland. It is a pity that someone with such a detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland was not invited to comment in more detail on the administration of charities there.
Be that as it may, it is worth bringing to the attention of the House the fact that prominent among the recommendations of Sir Philip Woodfield's scrutiny, which was placed in the Library of the House last week, is a series of conclusions that would require much tighter administration of the register of charities that is maintained by the Charity Commission in this country. At the very moment when the Government receive those recommendations, it seems a pity that they have not taken the opportunity to introduce at least the basic outline of some form of register of charities in Northern Ireland.
Naturally, my right hon. Friend will point to the cost involved. In the evidence given by the Department of Finance and Personnel to the assembly Committee which produced the report two years ago it was suggested that


20 extra staff would be required to set up a register. If there are 9,000 charities in Northern Ireland, the Committee is saying that each member of staff is capable of registering only 450 charities. That does not seem a heavy work load. I would be rather disappointed if I was contracting this out and the tenderer said, "For every 450 charities, I need an extra member of staff." That seems a ludicrously low rate of productivity.
If someone asked me to do the job, I would not register any charity with an income of less than £1,000. That would probably wipe out about half of them immediately, leaving about 4,500 charities. I would conduct the exercise over three years, so would register about 1,500 charities a year. I should have thought that that would have needed a staff of no more than three. Each of that staff of three would be asked to register two charities on each working day. That does not seem to be an excessively onerous work load. If we followed the suggestion in Sir Philip Woodfield's scrutiny for England and Wales, we could charge every charity on the register, for example, £50. If we are dealing only with charities with an income of more than £1,000 a year, that sum does not seem too excessive as a onceand-for-all registration fee. The 4,500 charities would thus provide an income of £225,000. Even on the salaries which the Northern Ireland Office might have to pay civil servants, three people could probably be hired for three years to conduct this exercise. Therefore, the argument of the cost of the register being a reason for not going ahead with it is wholly fallacious.
The second recommendation of the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly deals with the question of which body is responsible for supervising charities in Northern Ireland. I understand that at present it is the Department of Finance and Personnel. The report suggested that the Charity Commission, which at present deals only with England and Wales, should have its writ extended to cover Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with that recommendation, although I understand that because of the different legal structures it may be a rather difficult exercise. I certainly have reason to believe that it would not be particularly welcomed by the Charity Commission.
An alternative recommendation if the first were not possible is to have a counterpart body in the Province which would fulfil the same sort of functions as the Charity Commission fulfils in England and Wales. That seems perfectly possible. In any event, it does not seem entirely satisfactory that the Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for supervising charities.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can at least assure the House that he will reconsider these two matters, particularly in the light of what I hope will be a positive response from the Home Office later in the year to Sir Philip Woodfield's recommendations on the organisation of the Charity Commission and its responsibilities covering England and Wales. If my right hon. Friend can give us that assurance, we can look forward to the system of regulation of charities in Northern Ireland being put on a sounder footing.
I say that, not because I believe that vast abuses are taking place in Northern Ireland—I have no reason to believe that, and I hope that that will never be the case — but because if charities throughout the United

Kingdom are to be able to play the enlarged role which the Government have constantly said that they would like them to play — I welcome that — and if they are to continue to enjoy what I hope will be increasing tax concessions, it is essential to sustain public confidence. Both the public and the Government must have confidence that charities are subject to adequate scrutiny and regulation. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend can give the House those assurances.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I assure the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) that there is always a welcome from the Official Unionist Benches for anyone from any part of the United Kingdom who contributes to debates on Northern Ireland. We should like to think that we would contribute more often ourselves in the House and bring informed comment to the debates.
I welcome the Minister of State to his new capacity as the Minister responsible for the financial aspects of Northern Ireland affairs. Although he suggested that the order stemmed from the Department, it had an earlier incarnation, in that it started rolling from the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service, which is now the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. That body sent the order to the Minister concerned; it sent a copy to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and from there we began to move on it as well.
It is interesting that one of the few positive things in the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly that the Minister has been able to incorporate in the order is the error that we discoverd in the submission from the Department of Finance and Personnel — a misprint which gave £5,000 as £50,000. We recommended that that £50,000 should be the cy-pres ceiling. That is one of the few positive suggestions from the Northern Ireland Assembly that have been incorporated, which is fascinating.
I am not sure whether the Minister's presentation reflected a desire to be succinct and to help the lawyers outside the House or a weariness—I share it—with the order. If I could speak with the tongues of men and of angels and convince the House that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South was right to say that there should be a register and a Charity Commission in Northern Ireland, it would not make a bit of difference—the provision must go through. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said this afternoon, we are going through a charade. As he is older than me, he said that he is no longer playing charades.
I want to put on record tonight the fact that the House has been unwilling to incorporate a Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. It is an abomination that the Department of Finance and Personnel — a Government Department—should be responsible for the charities of Northern Ireland. There would be an uproar here if charities became the responsibility of the Treasury instead of the Charity Commission. There is something wrong with people's charities being administered primarily by a Government Department. It is equally an abomination when one considers that Sir Philip Woodfield's report, to which the hon. Member for Suffolk, South referred, has recommended the extension of the charity Commissioners of England and


Wales to Scotland. The laws of Scotland are more different from those of England and Wales than are those of Northern Ireland. There is something more hypocritical than usual going on in politics when we are told that the Government want to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales when that seems cost-effective — thereby running down our outstanding educational institutions, to which tribute was paid today in the House—while on the other hand, when the Northern Ireland Assembly asks that the charity laws of Northern Ireland be brought into line with those of England and Wales, that cannot be done. No rational explanation has been given as to why not.
I want to put on record our utter dissatisfaction with the way in which we are treated. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up by the House to bring forward recommendations. One hon. Member, who because of his professional background and earlier incarnation has taken an immense interest in charities, said that he was not aware of this report until this week, yet, by the laws of this land, it has been tabled in the House. As the Chairman of the Committee that piloted one report through the Assembly, I realise how many hours have been wasted. Almost 25 years have to pass before there is an opportunity to reform the law. The last opportunity was in 1964. We have been told that it will be years before some of Sir Philip Woodfield's recommendations can be implemented. it is tragic that the House is going through this charade when, by holding back a little and accepting the concrete recommendations put to the Government, we could have had a fine charitable law to guide and help.
In the meantime, the Inland Revenue will continue to say what is a charitable body and what is not. It is interesting that the Revenue was not able to come before the Northern Ireland Assembly Finance Committee to give evidence so that we could evaluate its input. The body that administers the law, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, likewise was not able to give evidence to the committee.
I welcome the fact that one or two of the smaller items have been accepted by the Government, but the order contradicts recommendation 8.1(e) of the Assembly's report. Paragraph 5.12, says:
nor should piecemeal legislative action be taken on specific purposes".
There should be proper reform of the charitable laws in Northern Ireland. I regret that that has not been done.
The order tackles none of the issues and provides no means of guiding new charities and effectively overseeing their work and the spending of funds. It evades all the matters of concern and avoids questions raised from experience of the Charity Commission for England and Wales. I have no qualms about the way in which the average charity in Northern Ireland is administered. Those who do the work do it remarkably well. There is always the possibility of mistakes being made, but it is sad that the part of the nation with the highest per capita rate of charitable giving is left apart from the rest of the nation and the charitable laws that guide the rest.

Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should be glad to respond briefly to the points raised by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) asked why we had rejected various Assembly proposals. I

understand that a voluminous document has been prepared and submitted to the Assembly, explaining why a number of the proposals were rejected. I shall be happy to obtain a copy and send it to the hon. Gentleman for his holiday reading— [Interruption.] —in October. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) for giving us the benefit of his great expertise and experience of charitable matters and charitable law. He mentioned the financial limits in articles 4 and 5 of the order, which follows the Charities Act 1985. I understand what my hon. Friend said, but I can only put it to him that those who designed and structured that Act were clearly mindful of the need to ensure the greatest possible protection for the wishes of donors, especially those who give relatively small sums. I understand that my hon. Friend feels that we have been too cautious, but I am sure that he will understand that transferring small donations to a charity other than the original beneficiary is a sensitive matter.
My hon. Friend mentioned registration. I am aware that the matter has been considered. In paragraph 6 of their 1982 annual report, the Charity Commissioners made it clear that a register does not provide proof that all registered charities are bona fide. It said:
We are not making moral judgments. Nor does registration imply that we are satisfied that an institution will be well managed, or that we arc giving it a kind of Consumer Association seal of approval".
I assure my hon. Friend that almost all requests for information about charities that are addressed to the Department of Finance and Personnel can be answered satisfactorily without recourse to a register. The point at issue is whether the utility of a register outweighs the considerable cost of its production.
My hon. Friend questioned whether the cost of producing a register would be as high as has been suggested, and I listened to what he said about it. I should like to reflect on what he said, take further advice and write to him. I shall place a copy of my reply in the Library as the House is about to go into recess.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister saying that he has ministerial responsibility for the administration of charities? If so, where will he draw the line when answering questions in the House?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that the Department of Finance and Personnel is the body responsible for matters of charitable law in Northern Ireland. In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, we shall discharge our respon-sibilities to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South also considered whether the Charity Commission should be extended to Northern Ireland and whether the Department of Finance and Personnel should continue to be the body responsible for the administration of charitable matters in the Province. As he is aware, there is a substantially different corpus of law on charities in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that consideration has been given to extending the Charity Commission's work to Scotland where the same legal arguments might apply. I shall consider that matter in the light of what has been said tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for adding to my knowledge of the history of these proposals. I was not aware that the inadvertent adding of a nought had been carried through


into the legislation. I am delighted that there is at least that result of the deliberations of the Northern Ireland Assembly in which he was engaged.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Limitation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This draft order is based on the 24th report of the Law Reform Committee entitled "Latent Damage", implemented in relation to England and Wales by the Latent Damage Act 1986. It also amends the law of limitation in respect of libel and slander actions in Northern Ireland.
The general principle underlying the law of limitation in most developed legal systems is that a plaintiff must commence a civil action for damages within a particular period if he is not to be debarred from doing so. In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, the general principle is that the limitation period starts to run against the plaintiff from the date of the accrual of his cause of action, that is, from the date when he first has the right to bring the action. In negligence cases, other than personal injury cases, which are outside the scope of the order, the general limitation period is six years. The six-year period starts from the date when damage first results from breach of the duty of care. In many cases the damage follows quickly upon the negligent act and is perfectly obvious. But there are cases where the damage does not occur, or where it is not discoverable, until after the six-year period has expired.
The Law Reform Committee considered that the present law was unjust from the point of view of both plaintiffs and defendants. As far as a plaintiff was concerned the six-year period might well elapse before the potential plaintiff could reasonably be aware that he had a right of action. This might occur in the case of a defect in the foundations or structure of a building. But it might equally apply to professional advice, for example by a solicitor or accountant, damage from which might not become apparent until well after negligence had occurred. At the same time the system could also prove unfair to a defendant because damage could start arising many years after the act of negligence had taken place so that he might not be in a position either to contest the claim on the basis of his records or to meet it with adequate insurance cover.
The order closely follows the Law Reform Committee's report. Article 3 takes account of the committee's principal recommendations. First, the ordinary limitation period of six years should be subject to an extension which would allow the plaintiff three years to commence an action from the date of discovery of significant damage, or the date on which he could reasonably have discovered it. Secondly, non-injury negligence claims should, in the absence of deliberate concealment on the part of the defendant, be subject to a longstop which would stop them being initiated after 15 years had elapsed from the breach of duty of care.
Those recommendations are further developed in article 4 by two consequential provisions. The first makes special provision for the situation where the plaintiff comes under a disability, for example unsoundness of mind, after a cause of action for negligence has occurred. The second provision disapplies the 15-year longstop from negligence cases in which there is deliberate concealment

on the part of the defendant. In such cases, as now, the six-year period does not begin to run until the date when the plaintiff first discovered, or could have discovered, the concealment—whatever the date.
Article 5 enables persons who acquire property which is subject to latent damage to have a right of action in respect of that damaged property. Although this provision provides for the accrual of a new cause of action to each successive owner at the time when he acquires the property, it is subject to the same limitation periods as the original cause of action, including the longstop. Again this flows from the Law Reform Committee's principal recommendations.
Finally, I said that the order makes some changes in respect of limitations in libel and slander actions. Article 6 takes account of the changes made in England and Wales in section 57 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 by reducing the limitation period in libel from six years to three. As it happens, the limit of slander is three years under the existing law in Northern Ireland. So this change makes all limitation periods for defamation actions of the same length. In addition, like section 57 of the English 1985 Act, it provides for a new extension of one year, for which leave of the High Court is necessary, where certain facts were not known to the plaintiff until after the three year limitation had expired.
This order is most technical, but I believe it is a useful piece of law reform. It has been welcomed on consultation. I commend it to the House.

Mr. James Marshall: I thank the Minister for his full outline of the draft order. As he rightly said, the order is technical, but it is a useful law reform measure, which we welcome in this House, as it was welcomed in another place. However, the Minister will be aware that in the other place Lord Fitt expressed some concern about the way in which such matters were discussed in Northern Ireland.
I shall refresh the Minister's mind. Lord Fitt made three points: first, that insufficient attention was given to law reform in the Province; secondly, that there was inadequate scrutiny, despite the kind of assurance which the Minister gave the House and which his noble Friend gave in another place; and, thirdly— this is the most important point — that there is no Northern Ireland voice on the Law Commission. Lord Fitt gave a great deal of attention to these points, particularly the third one. Will the Minister respond to the concerns that were expressed in another place? We welcome the draft order. It is a technical improvement upon existing law in the Province.

Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, perhaps I can reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). The hon. Gentleman referred to inadequate debate and scrutiny. When he began his remarks, I thought that he was referring to the degree of debate and scrutiny in the House. As he knows, that matter has beer raised by many hon. Members since the new Parliament started. We have responded, and the matter is being considered through the usual channels. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to a more specific point, and that is the adequacy of Northern Ireland representation on the Law Commission. That matter is not within my ministerial


responsibilities. Therefore, I shall make further inquiries. I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Powers of Attorney)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the following motion:
That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The two orders, the substantive order and the consequential amendment order, are based on the recommendations of the Law Commission's report No. 122 entitled "The Incapacitated Principal". They closely correspond to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 that applies in England and Wales.
As the House knows, a power of attorney is an arrangement whereby one person, the donor, grants another, the attorney, power to act on his behalf. Under present law, a power of attorney automatically comes to an end if the donor becomes mentally incapable. That is the time when he may well be most in need of someone to manage his affairs. The only course open to his relatives in such circumstances is to apply to the Office of Care and Protection in the High Court for the appointment of a controller. That procedure has recently been improved with the coming into operation of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. But is it, of necessity, a formal procedure which can be both time-consuming and expensive.
Against that background, the Law Commission recommended that the law should be changed to provide for a special kind of power of attorney, known as an enduring power of attorney, which would be capable of continuing regardless of the donor's mental condition. The Commission devised a detailed scheme, with built-in safeguards for the donor, the attorney, and third parties dealing with the attorney. That scheme is closely followed in the order before the House. It should provide a relatively informal means of managing a mentally incapacitated person's affairs without resorting to administration through the High Court under the mental health legislation.
Article 4 of the order sets out the framework of an enduring power of attorney. Unlike an ordinary power of attorney, an enduring power will have to be in a prescribed form. It will have to be executed by both the donor and the attorney. It will have to contain certain explanatory information making it plain to the donor the nature of the power which he is creating. It will contain a statement that the donor has read that information or had it read to him.
Central to the scheme is the role of the court. The attorney has a clear duty under article 6 to take steps to register the enduring power in the Office of Care and Protection of the High Court as soon as he has reason to believe that the donor is mentally incapable of managing his affairs, or that he is becoming so incapable. But before applying to the High Court for the registration of the enduring power, he must notify certain specified relatives as well as the donor himself unless the court allows him to dispense with notices to certain persons. The notification requirements allow the recipients of notices to


challenge the application for registration on the important grounds specified in article 8, paragraph 5. These are that the power created by the instrument is not a valid enduring power or no longer subsists, that the application is premature because the donor is not becoming mentally incapable, that fraud or undue pressure persuaded the donor to create the power, and that the attorney is unsuitable. Any challenges would be determined by the High Court.
On the registration of an enduring power, the donor is effectively presumed to be mentally incapable and can no longer revoke the power unless and until the court confirms such a revocation. The affairs of the donor are almost completely in the hands of the attorney, although the court has a supervisory role and may exercise certain functions in relation to the donor's affairs. These are set out in article 10. As an ultimate sanction, it must cancel the registration of the enduring power if it is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in article 10, paragraph 4, have been proved.
So far, I have dealt principally with the safeguards which the order provides for the donor. But it is important that third parties such as any purchasers of the donor's property should be able to deal with the attorney in good faith, confident in the knowledge that any such transactions would be effective and not liable to be set aside. Article 11 provides the necessary protection. It also protects the attorney who acts in good faith.
The purpose of the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order is simply to amend section 7(3) of the English 1985 Act which provides for the reception of office copies of English-registered enduring powers throughout the United Kingdom as evidence of their contents and of the fact that they have been registered. The consequential amendment order extends the same evidential provision to office copies of Northern Ireland-registered enduring powers.
The draft order has been welcomed by those who have commented on it, and I commend it to the House as a useful law reform measure.

Mr. James Marshall: Once again I must thank the Minister for his full explanation of the order. I hope that it does not become too much of a habit, and every time the Minister speaks I respond by complimenting him on the way that he has spoken and the explanation that he has given.
I welcome the enduring powers of attorney order and the consequential order. The Minister and the House are aware of two things: first, that we all want to go home; and, secondly, that the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 has been well received in England and Wales and has been widely used. It fulfils a real need in England and Wales, and I am sure that it will fulfil the same kind of need and serve the same useful purpose in Northern Ireland.
In another place my noble Friend drew the attention of the Minister to a number of lessons that had been learnt since the English Act was passed. My noble Friend sought an assurance that when the Northern Ireland Office drew up the regulations dealing with the order the lessons learnt in England would be taken into account. I repeat that question to the Minister tonight. When the Northern

Ireland Office draws up the regulations under the order, will it take into account all the lessons learnt in England and Wales since the 1985 Act was brought into effect?

Mr. Stanley: I am extremely pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Resolved,
That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 16th June 1986, in Session 1985–86, a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to examine the processes of enacting Private Legislation and to consider whether:

(a) there are any matters of a kind at present dealt with by Private Bill which could more appropriately be dealt with some other way, taking account of the interests both of Promoters and other affected parties;
(b) any changes are desirable in Private Bill procedure; and
(c) any amendments are desirable to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and the procedure thereunder;

and to consider whether any amendments are desirable to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

Ordered,
That the Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda reported from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, on 11th May 1987, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That three be the quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson, Mr. Roger Moate and Sir John Stradling Thomas be members of the Committee—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

That the draft Building Societies Investor Protection Scheme (Maximum Protected Investment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

HEALTH INSPECTION OF MEAT AND POULTRYMEAT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) ( Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8006/86 and 10530/86 on health inspection of meat and poultrymeat; and supports the Government's intention to argue for arrangements which take full account of the United Kingdom's position and for charges which do no more than recover actual costs incurred.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to

Trunk Roads (Selby)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Michael Alison: May I start by saying that I enjoy double good fortune in this debate — first, by having secured this slot so near to the end of our summer sitting and, secondly, that the Minister designated to reply is my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. He is a most conscientious and assiduous member of the Department of Transport team. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for having taken the trouble, in the past fortnight, to travel incognito over some of the roads that are the subject of this debate.
This evening my remarks will largely concentrate on the need for an early start to the Selby bypass. My hon. Friend the Minister may think that I am wasting his time and that of the House by pushing on a door that is already open as the Selby bypass is provided for, because it features explicitly in the recent White Paper "Policy for Roads". I must remind my hon. Friend that a Selby bypass was planned and projected as long ago as 1938 — I have official correspondence to prove that — yet it never materialised. Later that bypass was described as "programmed or in preparation" in the Department of Transport report entitled "Roads in England" published in March 1969. That was nearly 20 years ago.
It maintained that status until the 1975 White Paper, when it was described as being in "the preparation pool." That proved to be a drowning pool. Later still, the 1978 White Paper stated that construction of the Selby bypass would start in the period 1981 to 1983. Where is it today? It is still a paper project in the 1987 White Paper, nearly 50 years after it was first mooted.
The Minister will understand the need for me to bring this matter to the attention of the House and to press him to make a clear and unequivocal declaration of intent. Will he now say categorically that the Selby bypass will not slip back, as it has so often in the past, but will be started at the latest in the period designated for it in the 1987 White Paper?
I wish to press the Minister further. In a letter dated 20 January 1987, one of the Department of Transport's regional officers wrote to the county surveyor of North Yorkshire county council stating explicitly that the constraints controlling the 1991 start date for the Selby bypass were not lack of finance but delays occasioned by the usual statutory procedures relating to the line of the road, land acquisition and so on. The Minister should spare no effort to accelerate these procedures and thus secure an earlier start date. If he does not do that, a 1991 start date will mean our having to wait at least until 1994 before Selby can hope to see any benefit from a bypass. That is six and a half years away.
One means by which vital time could be saved, and at a stroke, would be by the Minister agreeing to the use of the concurrent rather than the consecutive procedure concerning the publication of the line, side road and compulsory purchase orders involved. In pleading for this telescoped procedure, I have the total backing of the North Yorkshire county council—the strategic planning authority for the area and the Minister's local agents—the similar backing of Selby district council, the local planning authority, and the overwhelming backing of the


local people involved. A vast amount of discussion, consultation and agreement have occurred and reached completion. The time is now ripe for action.
I hope that the Minister will agree to the telescoped procedure I have proposed. I hope that he will also undertake to bleed, so to speak, the bureaucratic procedures of his Department of the customary float times that are often included to cater for unforeseen eventualities —the double checking of his agents' works and so on. My aim—I hope I can engage the Minister's committed aspiration to the same aim—is to secure that the Selby bypass scheme is moved into the 1987 White Paper's list of schemes, with a planned start of construction not later than March 1989.
I will now flesh out the rather narrow and skeletal arguments of procedures and programming that I have been using, with a reminder of the real human dimension that lies behind them. Conditions in the town centre of Selby for pedestrians and road users alike are atrocious. Three trunk roads—the A63, the A 19 and the A 1041 — intersect in the town and two of them are funnelled through the notorious Selby toll bridge.
On the Abbey side of the toll bridge the trunk road is so narrow that two big wagons moving in opposite directions are liable to decapitate pedestrians—mothers with prams, for example — with their wing mirrors overhanging the narrow pavements. That accidents do not happen more regularly is due almost certainly to the fact that such wagons are more often stationary than moving, or moving at a snail's pace, thanks to the delays occasioned by toll collection on the bridge.
This is not meant to be an argument in favour of the toll bridge delays. On the contraty; the existence of this wooden 18th century swing toll bridge astride a major national trunk road must be one of the most bizarre and unacceptable anomalies in the whole network of such roads for which the Minister is responsible. The delays, dangers and costs occasioned to Selby and its locality, indeed to the whole nation, are intolerable.
I mention just two drawbacks. First, unique additional costs are imposed on local industry. Selby is potentially a commercial growth point, given that the district embraces the largest and most modern coalfield in Europe and three of Britain's largest fossil fuel electricity generating plants. But the Selby toll bridge has turned the district into a locality not to be cultivated but to be avoided. In a recent approach by the Selby district council to the 22 companies located in the area, inquiring about financial losses occasioned by the toll bridge, some extraordinary responses were received. One company said that the cost to its customers and itself occasioned by toll charges and toll bridge delays amounted to £40,000 annually. Other smaller companies reported costs running into many thousands of pounds. Imagine the incentive this constraint provides in terms of extra marginal cost to a company considering a move to or an expansion in Selby. They might as well be offered the plague as an incentive. Yet, there are some 3,000 unemployed in the Selby district.
Secondly, I should mention the safety hazard. British Coal in particular is actively concerned about the delays that the toll bridge might occasion to mine rescue vehicles having to travel fast in an emergency. It would be no use suspending the tolls temporarily in such a situation. It is the persistent existence of immense stationary tailbacks of jammed vehicles for miles on either side of the bridge that is the real hazard, not only for mine rescue vehicles but for

fire engines and ambulances as well. All those facts are additional to the usual cost benefit analysis that underpins my hon. Friend's priority rating for bypasses and add weight to my plea that every nerve should be strained and every ingenuity deployed to secure a start for the Selby bypass during the year 1989.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will register one or two slightly wider factors. Developments on or connected with other roads locally will affect the life of the Selby disrict in the next few years. Improvements already taking place or completed on adjacent sections of the A19 trunk road at Riccall and Barlby and, further afield, at York — the outer ring road — and Eggborough will tend to attract even more traffic to Salby. A nightmare is threatening the nearby town of Sherburn-in-Elmet, which I believe my hon. Friend may have travelled through. There, the British Gypsum company has suffered a flooding setback to its on-site quarry, and it is having to bring in 7,700 tons of gypsum per week by road—350 lorry loads a day—from its Newark quarry. That makes a Sherburn and South Milford bypass the Selby district's highest priority after the Selby bypass. The Sherburn bypass is a county responsibility and project. However, transport supplementary grant from my hon. Friend's Department is a crucial factor, and I hope that he will take note of the Sherburn problem.
Traffic in Yorkshire has been growing faster than the national average—45·4 per cent. between 1970 and 1985 compared with 41·4 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole. My hon. Friend should have Yorkshire — the premier county—written on his heart, with an arrow through it marked Selby. His name will then be written with gratitude on the hearts of the tens of thousands of my constituents on whose behalf I speak in this debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I cannot think of anyone whom I would prefer to engage the attention of the Government in a necessary bypass for his constituency than my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (M r. Alison). I had the privilege of following him at the Department of Employment, although he was of a higher rank than I, and I have admired, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have, the work that he has done as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the past four years. Together with the needs of Selby, the heart of his constituency, this makes me almost rejoice in the opportunity to spell out some of the relevant information on the timing of the Seby bypass, and to make some rather more general points about the road and bypass programmes.
The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the service that has been given by my right hon. Friend. Selby is well known, partly because of the change in the name of the constituency on the occasion of the last boundary changes, partly because of the great abbey there, and partly because of the growing development of the fossil fuel power stations, and the general growth in the area. My right hon. Friend said that my name might be remembered when the bypass is opened, but it is his name that will be remembered for the persistent way, both in public and n private, in which he has pursued the case for Selby.
My recent visit to Yorkshire for other purposes gave me the opportunity to go through Selby. I have with me the receipt for the 7p toll that I paid. It did not increase public


expenditure, because I paid for it out of my own pocket, and was happy to do so. I look forward to the time when those who want to visit Selby and need to go there can do so without delays, and those who want to go past it can, without inflicting their vehicles and their presence on the people of the town.
The difficulty comes not solely because of the existence of the historic swing toll bridge but because Selby needs a bypass. That was clear not only from the time of the Armitage report on heavy lorries, but also, as my right hon. Friend has said, in 1938. The difficulties in the middle and late 1970s came in large part from a shortage of cash. The 1975 roads White Paper was almost the signal for the invitation to the International Monetary Fund to help the then Government run the economy, and the programme became delayed, as the amount of Government money for national roads was cut in half between 1974 and 1979. That was not the sole factor but a contributing factor.
In 1984, a public consultation document said that the reasons for the bypass were the shared use of the town centre by the community of Selby and through traffic which, together with the operation of the tolled swing bridge, caused problems that could not be solved using the existing roads. The Department asked for the views of local people on where to put this new road and where to put the traffic. The two suggestions were not decided on by local people with unanimity, or even a great deal of pleasure. There was the northern route, which was too short, and the southern route, which had the effect of separating one part of the community from the other.
The Department went away and did some work, and I was delighted to be able to announce a year ago the line of this route. It was difficult to put that forward with confidence, because the economics of roads vary with the length and the amount of time that traffic is able to save, together with an estimate in the value of the drop in traffic casualties. It is always a bit heartless to put a value on the savings or the loss of human life and the injuries concerned, but we need to have some yardstick, and that is the best that we can have.
Having put forward that line, I believe that a great deal of work needs to be done. We need to examine the soil and carry out a topographical survey. We also need to study the origin and destination of traffic because that becomes important not only for planning the precise route of the road and the junctions, but to give the Department of Transport a good case at any subsequent public inquiry.
We then move on to the design and preparation of orders. My right hon. Friend referred to using concurrent or consecutive procedures. He will know that the Department is keen to save time whenever possible. It is not difficult to go for concurrent procedures when we have a small non-controversial scheme. Such schemes will still have objectors because there are always people whose garden, farm or land is affected by the proposal. There are times when it is sensible, because it will save time, to choose the concurrent procedures. Unfortunately, this is not one of those cases.
There are two reasons why it would not be right to use concurrent procedures in this case, although I fully accept and understand the reason why they have been proposed. First, to use concurrent procedures would mean that it would take longer for the orders to be produced because more work would have to be done. Secondly, for a road

that it likely to be six miles long, there would certainly be an inquiry. I should formally be advised to say that there might be one, but everyone in the House knows that there certainly would be an inquiry. If the independent, impartial inspector recommended a modification, that would destroy all that work that had been done. We would not have to go back to scratch in planning the road, but we would have to do so in drawing up the orders. So it is wise for us, and likely to save time in the end, to go for consecutive orders.
I hope that the description of the work that is already in hand will demonstrate to the residents of Selby and people living further away who at present have to go through Selby that this is by no means a paper project. It is a larger bypass than was proposed in 1984 and it will require more work. There is no need for me to go in great detail through what happens afterwards. I shall summarise by saying that when we have done our further work we shall explain what we are proposing. People will have the the chance to object, and then we enter the inquiry process.
We can never be precise about how long it will take to get through those necessary processes and statutory procedures. I emphasise that there is a democratic element, that people who are adversely affected can object to Department of Transport proposals. Normally that leads to a public inquiry where their views can be heard by someone who is independent of the Department. We take the inspectors' recommendations seriously. We do not invariably accept them, but normally we try to because that is the way to take some of the controversy out of road schemes. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that there is near unanimity on the need for a bypass, but I suspect that when it is put forward people may feel that they want to protect their own interest by raising objections.
I refer to the general problems of planning road schemes. It normally takes about 13 years from the proposal for a road to building it. We believe that we are saving time on that. We have had the advantage of a review by an outside expert. We shall continue to apply those recommendations, plus our own experience, to cutting out necessary time in preparing road schemes, including the Selby by pass.
We can never guarantee to keep to a timetable. I have the experience of going round the country and hearing about assurances given infrequently by myself, but more usually by my predecessor or her predecessor, occasionally by Ernest Marples and once or twice by Hore-Belisha, which could almost be one of the 1938 proposals mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The reason why we can go ahead with proposals such as the Selby bypass is partly that we have more money.
It is certainly true that, with more than 160 schemes presently in the programme, the ones that we have been completing in the last few years have been made possible by the way in which the economy has been run. But that general economic argument will not bring much comfort to the people whose interests have been so well argued this evening by my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend referred to conditions in one or two of the surrounding communities. The Riccall and Barlby bypass is nearing completion and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for agreeing to conduct the brief opening ceremony later, when I know that the one he would really like to be attending would be that for the Selby bypass. The environmental benefit which will come


to the villages of Riccall and Barlby will be considerable and they are exactly the same environmental improvements and benefits which Selby needs.
We build bypasses for three simple reasons. The first is to aid economic development, whether we are talking about inner-city areas, where better access is needed, or particular parts of Yorkshire, because Yorkshire is too large to be seen as one community, although it is a mighty county. The second is for the environmental benefit of putting through traffic on a through road, preferably one which bypasses the community.
The third reason, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is to save life and limb. In general, a bypass will cut road accidents by about 25 per cent. It makes possible traffic management arrangements within the community that has been bypassed and that helps to bring about the kind of reduction in road casualties that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce on Monday when he said that the number of injuries and deaths had fallen by 12 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. In part. that is a reflection of the continuing bypass programme.
I want to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Transport's regional office who spend most of their time trying to explain to me, and through me to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other colleagues, why it is not possible to conjure up a road overnight. A six-mile bypass is longer than normal. The approximate estimated cost of the Selby bypass at over £10 million is a reflection of the substantial work that will need to be done by the successful contractors when we let tenders. For that work to go ahead we need to do the preparatory work as fast and as early as possible.
My right hon. Friend referred to the need to get rid of toll bridges on trunk roads. We hope to be able to get rid of the last two toll bridges by the Selby bypass and one other. Although my right hon. Friend did not mention it this evening, I have considered the point that he has made on other occasions about buying out the toll. The cost of that would be substantial and, if added to the cost of the bypass, might make the project uneconomic. My brief experience of going through Selby showed that the problems arise because of the combination of the bridge being a swing bridge, the toll collection and the inadequate width of the road in Selby. Together they cause the irritation and the economic disadvantage which the Selby bypass would remove.
My right hon. Friend referred to the A162 and the Sherburn-in-Elmet and the South Milford bypass scheme. That is a North Yorkshire county council scheme, as my right hon. Friend said. I understand that work is expected to start in the early 1990s, but I am in no way able to comment on that prospect because it is a local authority road, not a national one. It is too early to say whether the bypass would attract sufficient priority for transport supplementary grant support and I hope that that will not be regarded, to use the vernacular, as a cop-out but an accurate description of the situation.
We ask local highway authorities each year to put in their transport policies and programmes. We look at what they propose for transport supplementary grant — in effect, a taxpayers' payment of approximately 50 per cent. of the scheme. It is a competitive situation, and involves looking at the way in which the local highway authority orders its priorities and the benefits of different schemes across the country. In general, we look to give individual support to schemes costing over £1 million, which are of more than local importance, and which contribute to the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
I do not want to dampen prospects in any way, but it is too early to be able to give the type of assurance that I know that my right hon. Friend would wish me to give. Nothing would please me more than to be able to give the assurance on timing for which my right hon. Friend asked. We are talking of perhaps a year or so before we can come forward with the results of the work that is going on at present. We shall then need to look forward to the period of explanation to the public, to the opportunity for objections, to the inquiry on the line and side road orders, and then move on to the compulsory purchase orders and to the prospect of a shorter inquiry on those. I am afraid that there is no way in which I can say what the result of that inquiry will be, because otherwise it would not be as independent and impartial as we would want.
My right hon. Friend has done a service to his constituency and especially to Selby by raising this subject. I hope that my remarks are of some comfort to him. We are taking the problem seriously. Like him, I look forward to the opportunity of travelling along and admiring the new bypass, and of being able to enjoy Selby without heavy goods traffic passing through it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.